(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Report on a study of the proposed consolidation of the Park and Recreation Departments"

GOVer; 



£*** ^j gggggTO l. 



352 5 a52m 



586950 



NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM THE LIBRARY 



Form 3427 — 5000 — 1-48 



VwvAl^U t, fc>. \ \v» 



ts 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 90187 1690 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

California State Library Califa/LSTA Grant 



http://archive.org/details/reportonstudyofp1947zuke 



FEB 6 194« 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



AUG 2 7 1948 

REPORT ON A STUDY 
OF THE FROPOSED CONSOLIDATION OF THE 
PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS 



by T DAVID ZUKERMAN 

Administrative Analyst 

assisted by: 

THOMAS J RATTIGAN 
Accountant 

ALFRED A LENZIO 
GEORGE H TRELUT 
Aup-ust 1947 Administrative Technicians 



OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

SAN FRANCISCO 



August 15, 1947 



The Honorable 

Roger D. Lapham, Mayor 

City and County of San Francisco 

Dear Mayor Lapham: 

In accordance with your instructions, a study has been 
made by your budget staff of the proposed consolidation of the Park 
and Recreation Departments* 

A report on that study follows. This study was made and 
the report prepared by T. David Zukerman, Administrative Analyst of 
this office, assisted by: Thomas J. Rattigan, Accountant and Alfred 
A* Lenzio and George Et Trelut, Administrative Technicians. 

The courteous cooperation of the Commissioners, the 
executives and the employees of the Park and Recreation Departments 
during the course of this study is gratefully acknowledged. "7e also 
are indebted to Mr. Ernest 0. Meyer, Confidential Secretary to the 
Mayor, for his valuable advice and assistance. 

Respectfully submitted, 



David E. Lewis 
Administrative Assistant 
to the Mayor 



586950 



. 



Chap 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Summary and recommendations (Reasons for merger) 1 

8 

Introduction 

Departments providing recreational service ... 11 

History of Recreation Department 

Establishment of first school playground . . . . 16 

Playground bond issues ...••••• ^q 

Creation of Playground Commission 

Organization and early growth 

Park properties used for recreation ...... j> 

School properties used for recreation ..... " 

Miscellaneous properties used for recreation . . ** 

Summary of properties acquired otherwise than ^ 

by purchase * _ Q 

Summary of properties controlled and in use . . £a 

Plans for expansion 

34 
San Francisco's recreation areas • « 

34 
School playground areas ^ 

Park properties _ 

Adequacy of areas devoted to recreation use . . oo 

42 
Recreational facilities 

Activities of Recreation Department 

Park facilities for play 

Similarity of Park and Recreation areas .... *' 

Modern park concepts . „ 

"Free play" versus organized programs 

Recreation expenditures and taxation 

Park Department costs and tax needs ...... j>5 

Recreation Department costs and tax needs . . . 
Combined requirements for Park and Recreation ^ 

Departments ...-••' 

Other public recreational costs 

Tex levies for recreational services °° 

Adequacy of financial provision for recreation . bJ 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

Chap Page 

7 Departmental organization 77 

Recreation department * 77 

Park department 80 

1. Administration and office division 82 

2. Engineering division 82 

3. Maintenance of grounds division . 83 

4. Operation - recreation or revenue division ..... 86 
Similarities of Park and Recreation Departments .... 88 

8 Park and Recreation Departments should be consolidated. 93 

Basic administrative principles .... 95 

Recreation proponents' viewpoints 96 

Fears unjustified in San Francisco . 99 

Trend to consolidation • 100 

9 Advantages of consolidation 109 

1. Reduction in the number of departments 109 

2. Removal of confusion 109 

3. Development of a strong united agency for recreation 110 

4. Better supervision of maintenance and operating 
personnel and activities .............. 112 

5. More complete and better rounded staffs ...... 112 

6. More complete shops and equipment • 113 

7. More efficient operation 113 

8. Economy 114 

9. Adequate development and use of park and other 
municipally owned lands for public recreation . . . 115 

Duplication despite inadequate facilities ....... 117 

Ellis-Polk needs 118 

South of Market and Mission districts * 119 

Jackson Playground ......... •• 121 

James Rolph Jr. Playground 122 

Duplication and inadequacy in the Sunset . 123 

Holly Park Circle 125 

Coordination with schools • 126 

Effect of additional facilities on patronage 128 

10 Proposed Organization 136 

1. Name , 136 

2. Commission 137 

3. Secretariat , 137 

4. General Superintendent ...... 133 

5. Divisional Organization; . 138 



TABLES 



Nuriber Pa C G 

1 Properties transferred for playground use from Park 



Department 



Properties transferred for recreation use from miscellaneous 
sources .. 



24 



Properties transferred for recreation use by the 

Department of Education 25 



4 Summary of properties transferred for recreation use from 

all sources other than purchase 28 

5 Summary of area, value and estimated costs of development 
and improvement of properties controlled and in use, fully 
acquired but undeveloped, in process of acquisition and 
proposed for acquisition by the Recreation Department ... 33 

6 Area and appraised value of property under control and 
management of Park Department 36 

7 Summary of land areas available for recreation >» 38 

8 Public park and recreation areas - 11 cities compared . . . 40 

9 Facilities for play and recreation on playgrounds and 

centers owned and controlled by Recreation Department . . . 43 

10 Recreational facilities in Golden Gate Park 44 

11 Recreational facilities in parks and squares other than 

Golden Gate Park and Floishhacker Playficld 45 

12 Expenditures, receipts and net required from taxes, Park 
Department, fiscal years indicated • • 56 

13 Expenditures of Playground Commission for administration and 
operation, fiscal year 1910-11 38 

14 Expenditures, receipts and net required from taxes, 
Recreation Department, fiscal years indicated » 59 

15 Expenditures, receipts and net required from taxes, Park 

and Recreation Departments, fiscal years indicated ..... 63 



TABLES (Continued) 



Number Page 

16 Expenditures 1945-46 and Budget for 1947-48, miscellaneous 
recreational services 64 

17 Annual tax levies for Park and Recreation Funds, and percent 
of total city and county tax rate, fiscal years ended June 30, 
1931-47 67 

18 General expenditures for operation, total recreation 
activities (in thousands), cities over 500,000 population 
fiscal years 1940 and 1944 72 

19 General expenditures for operation, organised recreation 
other than golf courses (in thousands), cities over 500,000 
population, fiscal years 1940 and 1944 . ..... 73 

20 Per capita expenditures for operation, total recreation and 
organized recreation other than golf courses, cities over 
500,000 population, fiscal years 1940 and 1944 74 

21 Departments administering recreational facilities in cities 

of 50,000 and more (1940 census) by size of population . . • 105 

22 Distribution of population segregated by departments 
administering recreational facilities in cities of 50,000 

and more (1940 census) by size of city 107 

23 Five year capital outlay program, park department, 

submitted with park budget for 1946-47 116 

24 Number of and attendance at playgrounds and centers and at 
school playgrounds under control of and supervised by the 
Recreation Department, selected years 1930-31 to 1945-46 . . 129 

25 Comparative attendance at selected playgrounds and centers, 
1930-31 and 1945-46 . 130 

26 Comparative attendance at selected playgrounds and centers, 
1939-40 and 1945-46 .' 131 

27 Comparative attendance at selected schoolyards, 1939-40 and 
1945-46 132 

28 Comparative attendance in vacation schoolyards, 1939-40 and 
1941-42 to 1945-46 132 



i. 



• 



. 



APPENDICES 

Number Page 

I Acquisition, area, value and estimated costs of develop- 
ment and improvement of properties controlled and in use, 
fully acquired but undeveloped, in process of acquisition 
and proposed for acquisition by the Recreation Department • . 144 

II Acquisition, area and appraised value of properties under 

control and management of Park Department 147 

III Detailed list of projects included in Recreation Depart- 
ment's program of expansion and improvement . , 148 

IV Expenditures of Park Department, fiscal years ended June 30, 
1931, 1936 and 1941-46, and budget appropriations 1947 and 
1948 150 

V Expenditures of Recreation Department, fiscal years ended 
June 30, 1931, 1936 and 1941-46, and budget appropriations 
for 1947 and 1948 151 

VI Receipts of Park and Recreation Departments, fiscal years 
ended June 30, 1931, 1936, 1941-46, probable for 1947 and 
estimated for 1948 152 

VII Municipalities having consolidated park and recreation 

services 153 

VIII Departments administering recreation ....... 156 

A. Cities with 1940 populations of 1,000,000 and more . . . 156 

B. Cities with 1940 populations of 500,000 to 1,000,000 . . 156 

C. Cities with 1940 populations of 250,000 to 500,000. ... 156 

D. Cities with 1940 populations of 100,000 to 250,000 ... 157 

E. Cities with 1940 populations of 75,000 to 100,000 ... 159 

F. Cities with 1940 populations of 50,000 to 75,000 . . . 160 



CHARTS 

Following 
I Present Organization Recreation Department, Page 

City and County of San Francisco, July 1947 . 7 g 

II Present Organization Park Department, 

City and County of San Francisco, July 1947 80 

III Present Organization Park Department Revenue Division, 

Recreation and Commissary Units, July 1947 . 86 

IV Proposed Organization Park and Recreation Departments 

Consolidated ...... 135 



SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. There are three departments providing recreational service to the 
citizens of San Francisco: the Board of Education, the Park Department and the 

Recreation Department. (Chapter l) Some of the playgrounds controlled and 

* 
opero.ted by the latter were originally park properties turned over for play- 
ground uce in accordance with the provisions of the charter amendment creating 
the Playground Commission, predecessor of the Recreation Commission, just as 
even more were transferred from the Board of Education and other city and 
county departments. (Chapter 3) 

2. Numerous requests made by civic organizations that the Recreation 
Department be allowed to supervise playgrounds in neighborhood parks and 
squares under the jurisdiction and control of the Park Department have been 
rejected. The Park Department has in some instances itself installed part- 
time playground directors, without, however, silencing those demands. (Chapter l) 

3» Including water department properties within the city limits or 
just over the county line, and the 200 acres used by Camp Mather in the Sierra 
watershed, there are nearly 4,400 acres of city-owned property actually in use 
or with a potential value for recreational use. The appraised value of these 
properties is upwards of $50,000,000 for the land alone. Including privately 
owned recreational areas and the military reservations, there is already a 
total of 5,875 acres within the city and county most of which seems destined 
to be open permanently. This represents one-fifth of the city's total area 
from shores to the county line. (Chapter 4) 



-1- 



. 



• - . I'l'l 



4. The city has numerous facilities for public play and recreation. 
Many of the areas and facilities of the Park and Recreation Departments are 
similar, but are operated under different philosophies and concepts of recrea- 
tional needs. (Chapter 5) 

5. The Recreation Department has projected a large program of expan- 
sion to cost almost $13,000,000. (End of Chapter 3) The Park Department also 
has a largo improvement program to cost more than $9,100,000. (Table 23) 
Same of the facilities planned by both departments will be similar in nature, 
just as some of the facilities proposed by the Recreation Department will be 
similar to those planned or operated by other agencies. For example, the 
Junior I.'useum proposed for Corona Heights is similar to the junior science 
workshops which will be a part of the planetarium to be built by subscription 
by the California Academy of Sciences. The little theater proposed on Rossi 
Playground already has its counterpart in the proposed civic theater, now 
functioning in the Marina Junior High School as the Bay Theater Dramatic School, 
one of the adult rctivitios of the Education Department. 

6. The organization of the Park and the Recreation Departments show 
many similarities and parallelisms. They both control and maintain recreational 
areas scattered throughout the city. The problems of maintenance are largely 
similar, require the some type of personnel, who are drawn from the same civil 
service lists and have similar duties, and necessitate generally similar equip- 
ment, materials and supplies. The properties of the two are in many instances 
adjacent to each other or close by, so that there is criss-crossing in the 
supervision and maintenance thereof. (Chapter 7) 



-2- 



7. There are some parts of the city lacking in playground facilities 
in which lie park properties the development of which along different lines 
might result in providing for the lack, ^atcr department properties within 
the city lend themselves to possible use for active or passive recreational 
use. The feasibility of concreting and sodding reservoirs should be tested. 
Sop.c school properties are not utilized to the fullest extent also. Coordina- 
tion and full use of all city and publicly owned property should reduce the 
need for acquisitions of new properties and premature development of properties 
already acquired. (Chapter 9) 

8. The best administrative principle s require that two governmental 
agencies in the scone area should not attempt to organize similar activities for 
the same clientele, as it makes for duplication, overlapping and inefficiency* 
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation Departments be 
combined into a single department. (Chapter 8) The advantages of consolidation 
are many, as follows: (Chapter 9) 

1. Reduction in the number of departments 

2. Removal of the confusion arising from the existence of two rival 
departments so similar in objectives and with similar facilities 
but different policies 

3. Development of a strong united agency for public recreation which 
should result in better service to all parts of the city by 
enabling each division to concentrate on the activity for which 
it is best fitted 

4. Better supervision of maintenance and operating personnel and activities 

5. Fore complete and better rounded staffs 

6. More complete shops and equipment, as a result of the coordination 
of maintenance facilities 

7. More efficient operation, the natural result of the foregoing advantages 



-3- 






' 



.':. 



8. Economy, even though it might be said that immediate economies will 
be of minor consequence 

9. Adequate development and use of park and other municipally owned 
lands for public recreation 



9» San Francisco has a small, compact, limited area. It is bursting 
at the scams because of population increase. The fight over the provision of 
additional acreage for the state college which is also desired and, indeed, 
needed for residential use is an indication of the seriousness of the space 
problem. The more land is used for public purposes, the more is taken out of 
circulation which vifould otherwise be on the assessment and tax rolls; hence 
the less is available for financial support, not only to pay for the land 
taken, as well as for the construction and equipment of the desired facilities, 
but also for the continued maintenance and operation of the program. This 
means a heavier burden on that remaining and those residing thereon or using 
it for industrial or commercial purposes. It thus becomes ever more essential 
to be assured that the facilities to be provided are necessary. Similar 
assurance, however, is also essential that those already in existence are 
being utilized to the full and are still needed. 

10. In view of rising costs it is imperative to direct emphasis first 
toward making the most efficient use of existing areas and facilities by 
integration before entering upon a program of expansion, except in areas where 
there are no facilities to be integrated, or where there is pressing need for 
additional provision. (Chapter 9) The coordination and cooperation of all 
agencies, both public and private, which have the same objectives and cater to 
the same clientele, should be secured, with the purpose of making the most 
intensive use possible of all existing facilities having present or potential 
use for recreation, both active and passive. 



-4- 



'■' ■'. 



11. Only such narts of the capital outlay program should be approved 
as will provide for areas now lacking in facilities entirely, pending a 
thorough survey of the city from the standpoint of available facilities, their 
possible use, and needs for the future, based on coordination to determine 
actual needs devoid of competition and premature provision, and within the 
ability of the city to finance. 

12. Despite the shortening of the work week and increased leisure time 
available for the average man, the number of waking hours available for amuse- 
ment and recreation are limited; and there has not been a similar increase in 
the leisure time of children, who will be affected most by the proposed 
program of expansion of the Recreation Department. Statistics of attendance 
seem to indicate that the provision of more attractive or additional facil- 
ities may in seme instances merely result in rivalry and siphoning off of 
attendance at existing facilities. (Chapter 9) 

13. The character of some neighborhoods has changed. This raises the 
question as to the continued need for facilities which show lessened use with 
time. One example is Jackson Playgroxind, in a section ever more industrial 
and commercial in character, where the City Planning Commission has indicated 
a need for even more space for commerce and industry. Another is Presidio 
Heights, one of the oldest playgrounds, where attendance in 1944-45 was only 

a fifth that of 1930-31, though it doubled in 1945-46 over the previous year, 
it was still down 58 percent below 1930-31. The same is true of Michelangelo, 
and there are playgrounds where the attendance is only a little more than 20 
percent of what it was 15 years earlier. The reasons for such drops should be 
studied to determine whether there is any longer need for such playgrounds, or 
whether they should be disposed of. (Chapter 9) The expense of maintaining 

-5- 



' 



scattered partial units, such as are to be found in profusion in the Richmond, 
should be a deterrent to their continuance unless this can be justified by- 
adequate patronage. 

14. The city has been devoting an ever increasing cum in the tax levy 
and an ever increasing proportion of the tax rate for city end county purposes 
to the demands of public recreation. The indications are that San Francisco 
is far in the lead of other large cities in respect to expenditures for this 
purpose. (Chapter 6) Perhaps the tine has come to step and take stock. The 
criticism lias been made that San Francisco is concerned too much with property 
development and not, enough with program. That may be one of the reasons for 
reduced attendance at some playgrounds and centers. 

15» One reason for recent substantial growth of Recreation Department 
budgets has been the development of recreation and community centers in housing 
units. The indications are that urban redevelopment is about to begin and will 
result in the addition of several large housing projects. The New York City 
Park Department has pointed to the need of coordinating slum clearance and 
recreation. It feels that the dedication of play areas and wide bordering 
streets shoiald be a definite requirement for new subdivisions. It is too late 
for that in this city; but it is not too late to assure the provision of 
recreation facilities in the housing development projected for Chinatown, nor 
to measure the influence of such provision on the proposals included in the 
Recreation Department's program of expansion in that area. 

16. The possibility of securing additional revenues from operation of 
recreational facilities should be explored* Some of the facilities provided 
now or in the past have limited appeal and require comparatively heavy unit 



-6- 



costs. The propriety of free use of such facilities which appeal to persons 
t^io otherwise spend considerable sums in pursuit of their hobbies may well be 
questioned; and the feasibility of adequate annual fees as a means of reducing 
the tax burden should be determined. In any case more stress should be laid 
on programs with mass appeal and less on those requiring expensive equipment 
that can be used by only a limited number of participants. 



-7- 



Chapter 1 
INTRODUCTION 

During the last fifteen or sixteen years, a series of requests have been 
rar.de by local civic groups in various parts of the city for transfer of the play- 
ground areas in neighborhood park squares to the Recreation Department, or super- 
vision by that department of those play areas in the same manner as school yards 
are supervised. 

The parks and squares for which such transfer or supervision has been 
requested, and which now are under the Park Department, include Alamo Square, 
Alta Plaza, Buena Vista Park, Duboce Park, Holly Park Circlo, Lafayette Square, 
McCoppin Square, Mission Park, Mountain Lake Park and Parkside Square. All 
these named parks and squares contain some paved and tanbark areas on whj.cn play 
apparatus and equipment have been installed. Hence, although they retain their 
landscaped and topographical features, they differ little in many respects from 
playgrounds controlled and supervised by tho Recreation Department* 

However, parents complained that they feared to send their children to 
these parks because they were frequented by questionable characters, and policing 
was considered inadequate. In many areas of the city the nearest playgrounds are 
much further away thon the maximum distance experience has shown children con be 
expected to walk to such facilities* (From correspondence on file in the Mayor's 
Office and the minutes of tho Recreation Commission. ) 

All such requests have been denied by the park authorities as "contrary 
to the policy of tho Board." Nevertheless, beginning with 1938, the Park 

-8- 



Department's budgets included requests for funds to permit the employment of 
part-time playground directors. These wore deleted until 1941-42 when an 
appropriation to provide for such services in four park areas was approved in 
the budget for that fiscal year. At the present time playground directors arc 
provided for Recreation Valley in Golden Gate Park, as vrcll as for Holly Park, 
McCoppin Square, Mission Park and Mountain Lake Park. They are assigned from 
3 PM daily to 5 in winter and 7 in summer, as well as from 9:30 AM to 5 PM 
Saturdays and Sundays. 

These assignments did not cause the requests for supervision by the 

Recreation Department to cease. In 1944, the San Francisco Second District, 

California Congress of Parents and Teachers, wrote to Mayor Lapham repeating 

their recommendations and the reasons therefor: 

What the Park Department was providing was criticised as being merely 
guardianship, not supervision. Parents were represented as dis- 
satisfied with aimless play, preferring instead organized recreational 
programs. Attention was directed to the lack of playgrounds in the 
area of 323 square blocks stretching from Julius Kahn Playground on 
the west to Helen "iills on the east and Funston on the north, within 
which Alta Plaza and Lafayette Square* are located. In Hayes Valley, 
one of the city's most densely populated districts, with one of the 
worst delinquency records, the only supervised areas arc provided by 
the Margaret S. Hayward playgrounds, though Alamo Square and Duboce 
Park are located within that area. 

The matter was discussed at a meeting called by Mayor Lapham at the 
request of the Association and held in his office on October 3, 1944. Six 
months later, on April 16, 1945, Mr. Lloyd E. Wilson, President of the Board of 
Park Commissioners, wrote a letter to the Mayor in vriiich he set forth the atti- 
tude of that board. That letter defined sharply the classic difference of 



* On February 24, 1940, Mr. Fiilson, president of the Park Commission, then Public 
Relations Director of the Young Men's Christian Association, wrote to Mayer 
Rossi, urging that supervision by the Recreation Commission be provided in the 
smaller parks, particularly Lafayette Square, 



-9- 



'■■'■...• 






. 



opinion between the "park-minded" and the "playground-minded" recreation 
enthusiasts: 

"After studied consideration, we have concluded that the real 
issue is not whether or not children's play should be supervised 
in park areas, but whether or not park areas as they now exist 
should be redesigned so that large portions thereof will no 
longer be devoted to park purposes. In other words, instead of 
having parks with such equipment and supervision as the use 
thereof and the particular neighborhood require, large portions 
of existing parks would be abandonod for park purposes and would 
be devoted to other purposes." 

Thus the letter began; and it went on to state the opinion of the Park 
Commission that the proposal be rejected on the following grounds: 

1. Park areas are subject to constant encroachment because of lack 
of available unimproved property. Increasing population makos 
further encroachment inadvisable. Moro park areas should be 
acquired to keep pace and to "further beautify the city, and 
afford recreation and pleasure for all the people." Existing 
park areas should be guarded jealously against encroachment and 
"preserved for all the people." 

2. The Park Commission was not opposed to any reasonable proposal 
for the assignment of supervisors to park areas to supervise 
play or children. They have been so assigned whenever it was 
apparent that such assignment was desirable or necessary and 
funds and competent supervisors were available for cxtens5.on 
and assignment "to meet all reasonable requirements." Thus the 
commission should not be understood as not being in accord with 
the plans of the Recreation Commission to provide programs and 
facilities wherever they were required} it did not, however, 
believe that this should mean taking over substantial portions 

of our public squares and parks now devoted to the recreation and 
pleasure of the general public and adding beauty to the city. 

3. The molestation of children by adults is a police problem. 

Henco it was believed that "the best interests of the public and the park 
system will not bo served by reducing the existing park areas which have done so 
much to beautify the city and which are primarily designed and maintained for the 
recreation and pleasure of the people as a whole." 

This is the background of Mayor Lapham's direction that a survey be made 

to determine whether a merger of the park and recreation departments would be 

desirable. 

-10- 



:.' 















Chapter 2 

DEPARTMENTS PROVIDING RECREATIONAL SERVICES 

There arc three departments of the city and county government which 
provide recreational programs independently of each other, though cooperating 
to some extent or dependent upon the facilities of the others. These are 
(l) the Education, (2) the Recreation, and (3) the Park departments. 

In the schools recreation in action is one of the three objectives of the 
physical education program, the others being health and physical education. How- 
ever, whereas the health program is ccnd\ictcd and provided by the city and county 
through its Health Department, the schools provide at least part of the recrea- 
tional program. This takes the form largely of interclass and intersohool, as 
well as after-school athletics, for which the schools use not only their own 
facilities, but likewise those of the Park and the Recreation Deportments. The 
teachers required for the project, formerly entirely volunteer, are now paid for 
such ^fter-school work. 

In addition to the physical education activities, elementary, junior and 
senior high schools conduct classes in music, drama, dancing and art, as well as 
in the crafts, both hand and mechanical. These arc all part of the regular 
educational curriculum; and they are participated in to a greater or lesser 
extent by all students. 

Yet these are the very activities that comprise the cultural aspects of 
the Recreation Department's offerings which, together with the physical program of 
that department, form the backbone of the organized program in playgrounds and 

-11- 



recreation centers. They give the participants an opportunity to further such 
particular interests and hobbies as are developed in the classroom. 

Hence the part played by the schools has become a vital factor in tho 
development of recreational programs generally. In many cities the schools 
maintain their own recreational systems, right alongside the other public recrea- 
tional activities conducted by other municipal departments. Sometimes this 
extends only to keeping schoolyards open after school hours and during vacations. 
In other instances, notably Chicago, the schoolyards are supervised all day and a 
fairly comprehensive program is conducted for the various age groups, changed with 
the seasons, and including inter-playground contests, as well as carnivals and 
community celebrations occasioned by various holidays. 

In seme cities they go very much further. Thus, notably in Oakland since 
1926, Berkeley since 1930, and San Diego where the voters recently approved a 
merger of the Recreation Department with the parks, coordination with the schools 
in the conduct of recreational activities has been secured by contracts whereby 
the same individual has been appointed to head both the municipal recreational 
system raid the school's physical education department. In Milv/aukee, V/is. (since 
1937), Newark, K.J. , Albany, F.Y. , and Canton, 0., the entire job of furnishing 
public recreation has been turned over to the educational authorities. Under 
both systems results seem to be highly satisfactory. 

Thus it is that the schools arc deeply involved in our consideration of 
the recreation problem, and must not be overlooked. This is especially true in 
San Francisco because of the numerous school yards and gymnasia under the super- 
vision of the Recreation Department. Their financial strength and extensive 
properties properly distributed geographically give them strategic importance. 
Operating under state lav;, hov.xvcr, and largely vdth the aid of state funds, 

-12- 



the schools r.re independent of local control. For the time being, therefore, our 
chief concern in this report must be with the other two public agencies providing 
recreation. 

In the Recreation and the Park Departments, the City and County of San 
Francisco has two extensive and to some extent competing systems offering a wide 
variety of play and entertainment facilities. In the former these facilities 
and activities are organized and directed primarily, though not entirely, toward 
our youth. There is, however, a distinct and increasing tendency to round out 
the service- by catering to adults with varying interests. This is especially 
noticeable in the organization of athletic programs for men and women and an 
employee program through its Industrial Division. It can also bo found in many 
other special activities, primarily the community center and the housing unit 
programs. 

For the most part, the activities and facilities of the department are 
available to all who care to take advantage of them without charge. Camp Mather, 
which is generally self-sustaining if capital charges be overlooked, is a notable 
exception. At the swimming pools a nominal charge of five cents is made for the 
use of a bathing suit and a towel. Similar fees are charged for the use of 
baseball and Softball fields and for the use of the school gymnasia operated. 
Small fees, some of which arc cancelled in favor of recognized organization, are 
imposed for the use of some of the facilities at Sigmund Stern Grove; and the 
summer concert program presented in the grove is financed and sustained by a 
cooperating organization aided by voluntary contributions. Exclusive of recrea- 
tional personnel and facilities, the activities of the Industrial Division are 
financed from dues paid by member firms and entry fees fixed in an amount to 
provide for referees, awards and other expenses incurred. The situation is the 

-13- 



same as regards the men's and women's adult athletic program conducted on a 
year-round basis. On the whole, as can be realized, the operating revenues of 
the Recreation Department other than from Camp Mather are negligible. 

The Park Department offers a wide and varied program of both passive and 
active recreational facilities, much of which results in the production of sub- 
stantial revenue. This is true not only of such activities as the restaurants 
and refreshment stands, golf, Kezar Stadium and basketball pavilion, the Yacht 
Harbor and Coit Tower* It is likewise true of the Children's Quarters in Golden 
Gate Park and the Flcishhackcr Playficld, where commercial facilities have been 
provided, and at the Flcishhacker Pool and Bathhouse. While most of those 
activities seem highly profitable, a large loss is sustained at the pool in spite 
of fees much larger than those charged at the pools conducted by the Recreation 
Department. Thus, for the fiscal year 1945-46, revenues of $11,921 met only 
little more than half the direct expenses of $22,935, which did not include 
retirement cost. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1947, revenues were expected 
to fall over $15,000 short of meeting the intimated direct charges of $30,000. 



-14- 



_ 



Chapter 3 
HISTORY OF THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT 

According to the report of the Recreation Commission for 1930-31, the 
first public playground was established by the California Club on school property 
rt Bush and Hyde Streets. However, no reference to this playground is to be 
found in the published reports of the Education Department of this period. 

The reports of the Park Department about this time disclose the existence 
of tho two main recreational areas for children in Golden Gate Park, the "Big 
Roc" and the Children's Quarters, since about 1888. Recreation Valley was "an 
extensive rural playground" used by numerous baseball and football clubs. 

"No feature of the Park's many attractions give greater pleasure than 
these twenty acres of playground, and with all it has the merits of 
the landscape picture. It gives pleasure, health and exercise to our 
young men, and pleases tho old and those who watch the games " 

The Children's Playground, developed at a cost of $50,000, the bequest of Senator 
Sharon, was "a great attraction." 

"The Children's Quarters is one of the gems of the Park. Every fair 
day, especially Spturdays and Sundays, thousands of children enjoy 
the attraction of this portion of the Park; the free swings are 
constantly in motion; tho sand boxes are always in use, and are a 
perpetual source of ploasure to the young ones; the goats, donkeys 
and merry-go-round arc equally attractive. " 

Of tho $200,000 to $300,000 spent yearly before the turn of the century, 
about $115,000 to ^125,000 was for maintenance and operation, including less than 
$2,000 for the weekly band concerts, and the balance for construction and develop- 
ment. The zoological collection was beginning to take shape, and the museum was 

-15- 



being oporatod directly. Expenditures made outside Golden Gate Park, if any, were 
not segregated until the year 1898-99, when the accounts listed §2,761 for roads 
and paths in Puona Vista Park, 06,189 for trees and shrubs in ten squares, of 
which |4,040 went into Union Square alone, and $631 for sprinkling and repairing 
paths in Buena Vista and Point Lobos. The three items total $9,581. The 
following year, however, $9,646 spent for maintenance alone out of a total of 
013,108 paid out on parks and squares; and the year after that the disbursements 
for maintenance alono were $30,945 out of a total of $45,409 spent on them. 

It was this same year, 1900-1901, that the financial reports of the 
Park Department showed a small outlay, only $39.41, for construction of the 
tennis courts and $14.00 for equipment. The next year, $1,204.75 was spent for 
such construction. There was also an item of $1,082.42 for maintenance of the 
tennis courts and clubhouse, most of which represented labor. For the next five 
years maintenance costs ranged between $1,300 and $1,500, in addition to from 
about $900 to some $1,200 for construction, or a total of fror. $2,300 to $2,500 
annually, except during the year 1904-05. In that year" nearly $2,500 was spent 
for construction alone, making the total expenditures almost $4,000. 

Establishment of First. School Playground 

The real beginnings of playgrounds for children are to be found in 
Ordinance 311, the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year 1901-02, adopted 
by the Board of Supervisors on June 10, 1901. This included a separate appro- 
priation of $12,000 added to the Common School Fund for "establishment and 
maintenance of a playground south of Market street and east of Tenth street, for 
physical culture." A plot was leased at Seventh and Harrison streets near an 
old school on Bryant street located on a site purchased in 1875, at a rental 



-16- 



■which a much later report shows to have been $740. Evidently ell but $2.53 of 
the appropriation was spent, though the report of the department's expenditures 
listed only $6,900.28 for playground purposes. A footnote explained that this 
charge represented "expenses for the l?st six months of the fiscal year," the 
"first six months, amounting to $5,097.15 included among above items." A 
separate item of $6,000 for "maintenance of playground" was added to the general 
Common School Fund appropriation of #1, 214,000 for the next fiscal year. There- 
after on appropriation was included with the lump sum of the school fund, and 
only its occasional appearance in the Auditor's Estimate of Probable Receipts 
and Required Expenditures of the Municipal Government showed that it remained 
at the same level for several years. 

Playground Bond Issues 

On April 13, 1903, the Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance 703, 
"determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the 
acquisition of lands fcr public parks to be used for Children's Playgrounds". 
On July 6, Ordinance 920 similarly called for the construction of new school- 
houses, improvements to existing school houses, "and also for additional lands 
for playgrounds for established schools." 

In the report of City Engineer C. E. Grunsky, dated June 30, the cost 
of the square block Immediately to the south of that now occupied by the ITorth 
Beach Playground was appraised at $244,000; and that of the block which has 
become Father Crowley Playground, excluding the school property on Bryant Street* 



* This plot, 92 '6" x 275' or .58 acre in area, was transferred by the Board of 
Education to the Playground Commission in 1911 in exchange for the far more 
valuable plot adjoining it on the corner of Seventh Street, with a frontage 
on Bryant Street of 182' 6" and almost double the area, 1.15 acres. The 
Efchen Allen School was erected on this site in 1915. In 1932 permission to 



-17- 



at $497,000. This made a total of $741,000, He also submitted plans for the 
contemplated improvements. 

His report of July 24th on the school proposals listed only the following 

appraisals of "additional lands to be acquired for playgrounds as specified in 

the ordinance" : 

Crocker Grammar School 25 x 110 feet $ 2,900 

Dudley Stone School 25 x 137 feet 6 inches 2,900 

V.hittier Primary School 50 x 160 feet 20,600 

Sherman Primary School 45 x 137 feet 6 inches 5,000 

Clement School 72 x 137 feet 6 inches 65,500 

However, in the case of several schools, the construction costs of which 
were estimated, there were appraisals of "additional plots to be added to present 
sites" which may have beon intended for the same purpose. Besides that, it is 
probable that such provision had already been made in the purchase of some of 
the sites. Thus, the description of the structure for Lowell High School stated 
that "two exits from a central corridor will lead to the recreation grounds." 

Accordingly, on August 3, 1903, the Board of Supervisors adopted 
Ordinance 946, submitting these two propositions along with ten others to incur 
debts to a total of $17,771,000 at a special election held on September 29, 1903. 
As the bond issues were deemed to have been approved, an ordinance providing for 
sale of a portion of the bonds was adopted on February 1, 1904, and the 18th of 
April was set as the date for receiving bids. 



use this building was granted the Recreation Commission; and it was the 
center of "PIPA activities. During the war it was taken over by the 
Federal government along with the playground itself. The Photography 
Center i the Motion Picture Project are now again housed in this 
center; and showers and dressing rooms have been fitted up for those 
usr 1 - % ; diamonds. 



-18- 



■ 

1 • • • 



However, suit was started to restrain further action on these bond 

issues on various grounds, one of which was the inclusion of the playground 

bonds, for which it was contended, the municipal authorities lacked power. 

The opinion of the appellate court on this particular question vra.s as follows: 

"No person will question the wisdom or benefit of such acquisition 
in a densely crowded municipality like San Francisco, and such play- 
grounds are the breath of life to thousands and tens of thousands of 
the city's children. No authority is cited by the appellant,' and it 
may be confidently asserted that none can be found, sustaining the 
contention that the use of such parks for such purposes is in any way 
unlawful. The right to acquire the lnnd for park purposes being 
undisputed, if after tho acquisition one should contest the use pro- 
posed to be made of them upon the ground that it were illegal, and 
such contention were sustained the result would be merely to limit 
the use to strictly park purposes. We are of the opinion that lands 
may be acquired for park purposes, and that it is a part of park 
purposes to devote some of these lands to children's parks." 

With regard to the school playgrounds, the report of School Superin- 
tendent Roncovieri for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1907, is interesting 
because of his- recommendation for "equipment of playgrounds provided for in 
the bond issue." He colled attention to the artificiality of child life in 
our great cities, whore "the high price of land results in little or no yard 
space" and "forces children upon sidewalks or streets, often congested with 
traffic" where "ball-playing is prohibited and any form of play is either 
listless or impossible." While gratified to note that municipal authorities 
were "commencing to supply a great need" in the form of sites for playgrounds, 
ho deplored the fact that "the play in the large majority of these playgrounds 
is undirected, and therefore large boys and men monopolize them." 

"Municipal playgrounds are equipped with devices for facilitating play 
and athletics of all varieties, and are under supervision. Cities arc 
rapidly establishing opportunities for well-direcT^i,- wholesome play ... 
The .-•;• -,essful operation of the playgrounds established by the Board 
of JT.'"i. :..tion of this City induces the hope that they may be extended. 
It --vi -id have been well had the authorities about fifty years ago set 
aside entire blocks for school sites which would have afforded ample 
room for activity. 'Where land is comparatively cheap, large yards 



-19- 



should be secured for schools in existence. I cordially recommend 
that liberal appropriations be made for our playgrounds already in 
operation, end for the establishment and maintenance of others when 
needed, and for the supervision of school yards after school hours." 

Such was' the background in which organized recreation got its start in San 

Francisco. 

Creation of Playground Commission 

The. Playground Commission, predecessor of the P L ecreation Commission, was 
created by charter amendment in November of 1907. This amendment gave the new 
commission "complete and exclusive control, management and direction" over "all 
children's playgrounds owned by the City and County, and all children's play- 
grounds that shall hereafter be acquired, and all public recreation centers 
other than those located in Golden Gate Park", with exclusive right to the 
erection of buildings and structures therein, as well as the po%ver to purchase 
lands for such purposes* 

The Park Commission was empowered to set apart, either absolutely or 
for a definite period of time, such parks and squares other than Golden Gate 
Park or Mission Park, or portions thereof as they deemed proper, for use as 
children's playgrounds or recreation centers. TVhen so set aside these also 
were to be "under the exclusive management and control of the Playground 
Commission," So that there might be no questions of jurisdiction. Section 1 
of Article XIV of the charter, which set forth the authority of the Board of 
Park Ccranissioners over "all parks and squares and public pleasure grounds" was 
likewirs • Lended by addition of the exception "that children's ploygrounds and 
recrev • • ^enters outside Golden Gate Park shall, to the extent sf their use 
as Buok ;> v^rounds and recreation centers, be under the exclusive management 
cad ".orrfcrol of the Playground Commission." 

-20- 



It should be noted that the above provisions no longer prevail. On 

November 4, 1924, Article XIV was further amended to place under the Park 

Commission "the recreation centers known as Aquatic Park, Fleishhacker Pool 

and Playfield, Municipal Golf Links in the Merced lands (Harding Park) and the 

Stadium, together with such lands now acquired or hereafter acquired by the 

City and County adjacent to said centers which the Supervisors shall designate." 

The present charter gives to the Park Commission, in Section 41, 

"Complete and exclusive control, management, and direction of the 
parks, squares, avenues, grounds and recreation centers, now or 
hereafter placed under charge of the commission, including exclusive 
right to erect and to superintend the erection of buildings and 
structures thereon, except as in this charter otherwise provided," 

and to the Recreation Commission, in Section 42, 

"complete and exclusive control, management and direction of all 
playgrounds, recreation centers, and all other recreation facilities, 
now or hereafter placed under charge of the commission, including 
exclusive right to erect and to superintend the erection of buildings 
and structures thereon, and to construct new playgrounds and recreation 
centers, except as in this charter otherwise provided." 

Organization and Early G r owt h 

The Playground Commission organized on January 8, 1908. As it was 
without funds for current expenses, meetings were held at the offices of the 
Board of Education, which also provided the necessary secretarial and other 
office services and facilities. The bonds authorized had been sold in 1904 
and 1905, and some $220,000 of the proceeds had been used by the Board of 
Supervisors for the acquisition of parts of the North Beach and Southside 
playgrounds. Additional purchases of land to round out those eites were made 
and work begun on plans for the improvements, which were to include a swimming 
pool and a 'Yettloment house" at the former location. Petitions for playgrounds 
poured in EVom all sections of the city; and the first report of the commission 



-21- 



recommended the acquisition of additional areas, particularly in tho Mission 
district and west of North Beach, towards the Richmondt 

The initial appropriation for the fiscal year which began the following 
July was $20,000 for salaries and expenses, as well as improvement, equipment 
and maintenance of playgrounds. Only $16,702.88 was actually spent, of which 
$1,305 was for the salary of the secretary (for part of the year) and $108.25 
for stationery and incidentals. As the Board of Education continued to permit 
use of its quarters, there was no expense for rent. The free use of vacant 
land was secured in the Potrero district, and it was put into shape for use. 
The appropriation for the following year was increased to $35,000 - exclusive 
of $76,162 required for interest and redemption of the bonds issued - and again 
the year after to $50,000. 

By 1916 the appropriation had grown to $66,000. Eight playgrounds were 
in operation, of which only Excelsior had been added to North Beach and Father 
Crowley by purchase. Three had been transferred from the Park Department under 
the Charter provisions described above. These were Jackson in 1909, Hamilton 
in 1911 and Holly Park* in 1912. The two remaining, Spring Valley (now known as 
Helen Wills) and Presidio Heights, were school properties, and two school yards 
were also under supervision. Besides that, the North Beach Pool, which has 
since been abandoned, was in use, as was Mission Pool. The latter is likewise 
on school property, which was purchased in 1903 with bond moneys and leased to 
the Playground Commission informally in 1910. The site has since been enlarged 



* On recommendation of the Playground Commission's budget Committee, Holly 
Park wrs returned to the Park Department on February 25, 1918. In 1929 
its transfer for playground use was again requested, but without result. 



-22- 



■ ■'•■'.-.• 






' .1 

; 

- ..■ 
■■ ■ ' 
■ ' 

■ ■ 



[■.CoI'I ?.» . 

' ' ' • ■ •■ ' >. - 



by purchase of the adjoining property for playground use. Further enlargement 
is now proposed, and tho construction of a center. 

For the next fiscal year, that of 1916-17, tho fund available to the 
commission amounted to .$120,000, of which $49,000 was for expansion and 
construction, and the remaining $71,000 for maintenance and operation. Of 
this amount the sum of $5,000 was earmarked for the employment of 20 play 
directors in school yards after school hours and during vacations. 

There xvas evidently a close working relationship with the Board of 
Education. A survey of the city government made in 1916 discloses the fact 
that the Advisory Superintendent of the Playground Department was also a 
school employee, receiving ^3,000 of his $4,000 salary from the schools. 
Besides that, the $900 salary of the stenographer assigned to assist him in 
his playground duties also came from that source. It is from such small 
beginnings that organized recreation in San Francisco has grown to its present 
proportions. 

Park Properties Used for Recreation 

In addition to the above park properties, the eastern half of the 
southern part of Jefferson Park was transferred in 1920 and is now the boys' 
section of the Margaret S. Hayward Playground. The portion used for girls and 
young children was handed over two years later. The piece reserved for the 
site of the Central Fire Alarm and Broadcast Station was specifically excluded. 
As actually developed for playground use", a strip giving access to it from 
Golden Gate Avenue was also omitted. In November of that same year, 1922, 
Lobos Park, to which title had been acquired in 1864 under an act of Congress 



-23- 



■ ' ' '■■' •■ ■ ■■ . ■ 

■'■•.■..■■■' 

■" ' ' ' "' ■ ' ' '' -., ! ■ 

: ■;..'. 

' • . . ■ ■ ■ 

" ' ' '" ' . • , . 

' ■ ■ ■ ■■■■ '.ill ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.-.':■. 

. . • ■ - ■ 

'■ ■ ' .•'•••• . ■ •■ . 

'''■-■■■■.■" • •- : ! •-■ .- . . ■ .'■ . ; ... .: 

:■■">■■■ ■ ■ \ ■ ' ' . ; 

'■ ■ \ 3 " ! ' :■ ■• ""' ,''\, l ; 

■ ■■: ■ . •• '■ .-.vl ■■■;■-. : ■ 



"to expedite settlement to land in the State of California," was also released, 
to become Funston Playground. 

The next and last such transfer of park property did not came until 1928, 
■when Commissioner MacLaren agreed to enlargement of Hamilton Playground, on 
condition that provision be retained for adults. Originally, only that portion 
from the westerly line of Pierce Street as extended to Scott, an area of 2.53 
acres, has been given up. The playground now covers 4.4 acres, and the two 
grass plots fronting on Steiner and Scott Streets are maintained by the Recrea- 
tion Commission. In all, including these vestiges of Hamilton Park, the Park 
Department has yielded a trifl©- over 28 acres, the appraised value of which, 
according to the Real Estate Department, was $1,717,200 on December 31, 1946. 
About 26.5 acres, valued at more than Si, 600,000, is actually used for play- 
ground purposes. 

Tablo 1 
PROPERTIES TRANSFERRED FOR RECREATIONAL USE 
BY THE PARK DEPARTMENT 

Year Playground or Facility Area Appraised Value 



1909 


Jackson 


4.41 


acres 


$ 192,000 


1911 


Hamilton 


5.64 


(1) 


368,600 (1) 


1920 


Margaret S. Hayward - boys ) 








1922 


Margaret S. Hayward - girls) 


5.34 


(2) 


465,600 


1922 


Funston 


12.70 


(3) 


691,000 



Total 28.09 acres $1,717,200 



(1) The portion actually utilized for the playground proper would have a 
prorated value of about •5275,000 if some allowance be made for the 
corner values of the Steiner and Scott Street frontages. 

(2) The Recreation Department shows 2.2 acres for the boys' portion and 
1.8 acres for the girls' side, a total of 4 acres. This is probably 
incorrect; as it is more nearly 5.25 acres, making allowance for the 
strip referred to. On that basis the value is about $10,000 less. 

(3) The Recreation Department later released its rights to Webster Street 
to the Education Department for use by the Marina Junior High School. 



-24- 



:•-. - ; •• 



"n 






1 



' . a . 






School Properties Used for Recreation 

Beginning with 1925, the Education Department gave its permission for 
the use of a number of properties under its control to add to the three origin- 
ally turned over, retaining titlo to them. Some have since been withdrawn, 
cither for school use or for disposition by sale or exchange. At the present 
time, the Recreation Department is using a total of 17 school properties, with 
an area of almost 15 acres and an appraised value of a little more than half a 
million dollars for the land alone. 



Table 2 

PROPERTIES TRANSFERRED FOR RECREATIONAL USE 
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Year Playground or Other Facility Area Appraised Value 

1910 
1910 
1914 

1925 
1928 
1929 

1930 
1931 
1932 

1932 
1932 
1932 

1932 
1932 
1933 

1937 

1938 



(1) These have since been enlarged by purchase of adjoining properties. 

(2) Includes area and value of portion occupied by branch library. 

(3) Purchased as part of the site for Father Crowley Playground and exchanged 
in 1911 for the adjoining school property on Bryant Street. 

(4) Part of the former site of the county jail. 

-25- 



Presidio Heights (informal Agreement) 
Helen Wills 
Mission Pool 


.43 
.43 

.83 


acres 

(1) 

(1) 


$ 37,800 
42,500 
28,800 


Argonne 

Michelangelo 

Richmond Tennis Courts 


.83 
.43 
.83 




37,500 
20,600 
37,500 


Rochambeau 

Cabrillo 

Corporation Yard at 150 Hampshire 


.83 
.83 
.46 


(1) 


36,000 
25,000 
15,000 


Bernal Playground and Center 
Clement Tennis Courts 
Noe Valley Tennis Courts 


.99 
.83 
.92 


(2) 


21,500 (2) 

36,000 

20,100 


Souths ide Center 

Part of Sigmund Stern Grove 

John P. Murphy 


1.15 
.83 
.74 


(3) 
(1) 


100,500 

3,000 

16,000 


Fulton 
Junior Museum 


.83 
2.25 


(4) 


25,000 
16,900 


Total 


14.84 


acres 


$519,700 



■"■"' ' ' 






' ■ ■■ 






Miscellaneous Properties Used for Recreation 

• There arc a few other properties used by the Recreation Department 
which were not acquired specifically for recreation purposes. Three of them 
do not even belong to the city, and in one other the city has only a half 
interest financially. This is Phelan Beach, held on a 50 year permit from the 
State of California, which acquired its 6.04 acres in 1934 at a cost of 
$160,000, one-half of which was paid by the Recreation Commission, in part 
from the James D, Phelan bequest. The Julius Kahn Playground, 6.03 acres on 
the grounds of the Presidio, is being operated on a 99 year lease from the 
Federal Government dating from July, 1922. The quarter acre Levi Strauss 
Playground has been held on lease from that company since 1927 at the nominal 
rental of one dollar a yearj and the North Beach Annex, on v.hich is housed the 
local teen-age center, is on a plot with an area of .48 acre leased from the 
Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Association since 1934. 

The largest single piece of property used by the Recreation Department, 
Camp Mather, is on 200 acres of Hetch Hetchy land turned over for the purpose 
in 1924. The Yosemite Park and Curry Company had conducted a camp here, and 
their facilities were acquired by the commission in 1925 and the camp establishede 
Additional facilities constructed five years later at a cost of $32,000 doubled 
the capacity. The facilities of the Crocker Amazon Playground, provided with 
the aid of work relief funds at a cost of approximately 0357, 000, were developed 
on 42 acres of Hetch Hetchy property, worth Si 50, 000. They are part of 55 
acres acquired for future reservoir use, and leased to the Recreation Commission 
pending the construction thereof. During the war the Navy took over and used 
all but 2.9 acres making up the surfaced courts, the small children's tanbark 
area, and the landscaped frontage on Geneva Avenue. After the war ended the 



-26- 



■ •_'.'.; . ... . . : ..- .... 



- 

• '.■•■'. 

• ■■ ■ 

■ • • 

' .' ' ' ! " 

'•.•■•' 

■ • • • 

■ 



i 






. ... 



.. • .. . : ■ 






grounds were acquired on a. two-year lease by the San Francisco Public Housing 
Authority for the temporary housing of veterans. 

Richmond Playground Wo. 1 is on a site originally reserved in 1867-68 
in trust for the Ladies Relief Society. On October 22, 1914, on advice of the 
City Attorney, it was declared an abandoned trust and transferred for recrea- 
tional use. It has an area of .83 acre, and is appraised at ^37,500. 

The 1.89 acres of the West Portal Playground, worth $37,500, were 
originally acquired for construction of the open cut section to the tunnel 
under Twin Peaks Ridge. The plot was transferred to the Playground Commission 
by tho Board of Supervisors on February 15, 1927. The horseshoe courts and 
card ani game tables at Rossi Playground are on a plot almost .3 acre in area 
with a value of 1*4,570 which was transferred on June 24, 1935 from the Department 
of Public Works. 

A substantial part cf the Sigmund Stern Recreational Grove was donated 
in 1931, solely for recreational use under the jurisdiction and control of tho 
Playground Commission, by Mrs. Stern as trustee for the Sigmund Stern Recrea-' 
tional Fund. These donated properties plus the street areas later released 
represented about 40 percent of the total present area of 33.15 acres. The 
balance, except for the plot reserved for a school and transferred from the 
Board of Education, was purchased. Mrs. Stern also donated $10,000 toward the 
$30,000 paid for the plot of 4 acres on the corner of 19th Avenue and Sloat 
Boulevard. 

The former library building now housing tho Drama Workshop was trans- 
ferred in 1921. The land is appraised at $3,750, and the building at 53,400, e 
total of $7,150. 



-27- 






i 



1914 
1921 
1924 

1927 
1934 
1935 



Table 3 

PROPERTIES TRANSFERRED FOR RECREATIONAL USE 

FROM MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES 



Year Playground or Facility 



Source 



A. From City and County Departments 



Richmond No. 1 
Drama Workshop 
Camp Mather 

West Portal 
Crocker Amazon 
Rossi (part) 



Abandoned trust 

Library 

Hetch Hetchy lease 

Twin Peaks Tunnel 
Hetch Hetchy lease 
Public Works 



Total City and County 



B. Other than City and County 



1922 


Julius Kahn 


Federal lease 


1927 


Levi Strauss 


Private lease 


1931 


Sigmund Stern Grove 


Donation 


1934 


North Beach Annex 


Private lease 


1934 


Phelan Beach 


State permit 



Total from Other Sources 



Area 



Appraised Value 



.83 


acres 


$ 37,500 


.09 




3,750 


200.00 




- 


1.89 




37,500 


42.00 




150,000 


.29 




4,570 


245.10 




$233,320 


6.03 






.25 




- 


13.50 


Est. 


$ 70,000 


.48 




. 


6.04 




160,000 


26.30 




$230,000 



Summary of Properties Acquired Otherwise than by Purchase 

Combined, these properties have a total area of 271 acres; and their 
appraised value, exclusive of Camp Mather and the playgrounds leased from the 
Federal government and private companies or organizations, is about $465, r 0?0. 



Table 4 

SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES TRANSFERRED FOR RECREATIONAL USE 
FROM ALL SOURCES OTHER THAN PURCHASE 



Source 



Park Department 
Education Department 
Miscellaneous City 
Miscellaneous - other 

GRAND TOTAL 



Number 

5 

17 

6 

5 

33 



Area 

28,09 acres 
14.84 
245.10 
26.30 

314.33 acres 



Appraised Valw - 

$1,717,200 
519,700 
233,320 
230,000 



52,700,220 



-28- 



In all, then, the above properties acquired otherwise than by purchaso 
and developed for playground or other recreational or auxiliary use by the 
Recreation Department cover a total of 314 acres, of vhich 200 arc in Camp 
Mather. Excluding this and the three properties leased from non-municipal 
sources, their appraised value, partly prorated or estimated, is £2,700,000. 
This figure is undoubtedly conservative, as the appraisals of the Real Estate 
Department have remained practically unchanged since 1940. It should also be 
noted that these values are on the basis of bare land. 

The above analysis does not include the school yards supervised after 
school hours and during vacations, nor the gymnasia supervised evenings or used 
as recreation centers or borrowed for other activities. It excludes the Crystal 
Plunge and Ballroom, which has been operated on lease since 1941; and it does 
not take into consideration the space provided in permanent and temporary 
housing developments for operation and supervision of community center programs. 

Summary of Properties Controlled and In Use 

Yot, despite these omissions, they represent a substantial portion of 
the properties already in use under the control and management of the Recreation 
Department. Phelan Beach has been included because, despite lack of expenditures 
for the projected development, it is used by the public and a crew is sent there 
from time to time for clean-up. So with Corona Heights, on a smr.ll portion of 
which a playground has been constructed, with another one planned, although the 
property is intended chiefly as the site for a greatly expanded Children's 
Museum. Including these, there are fifty properties with an area of 235.66 
acres in addition to the 200 acres of Crmp Mather, and an appraised value of 
$4,657,650. Thus, exclusive of Camp Mather, the above acquisitions from various 



-29- 



sources other than by purchase represent almost half the area and more than 
58 percent of the basic value of properties controlled and oporated at least 
in part. The appraised value of the purchased properties, $1,957,450, is 
0140,000 more than the prices paid for thorn, not counting the costs incidental 
to acquisition. 

The costs of development, improvement and equipment of the playgrounds 
and centers are available to only a very limited degree. Hence the Real Estate 
Department's annual compilation of the valuation of the City and County's real 
property was again resorted to for the appraised value of the improvements. 
These pertain only to structures such as convenience stations or other field 
houses, bleachers and centers. Excluding the center housed in the old school 
building at Bernal, where the valuation given also includes the branch library 
building on the some site, the improvements listed range from $500 each for the 
field houses at Rayview and Vis it ac ion Valley to $112,800 for the recreation 
center and gymnasium at Glen Park and .^ISOjOOO for the concrete bleachers at 
Crocker Amazon. The appraised value of improvements on Glen Park, Crocker 
Amazon, Portola Center and Funston Playground alone account for over $305,000 
of the overall total of $529,600. 

P lans for Expansion 

In addition to the above, the Department also has acquired fully, except 
for a small gore to be transferred from the Department of Public Works, six sitef 
ranging from less than two acres to nearly 14, with a total of 31.71 acres. It 
is also in the process of acquiring seven more. Of the nearly 48 acres involved 
in these IS sites, nearly 11 acres in 5 sites have been purchased. The 22.6 
acres in Pine Lake, adjoining Sigmund Stern Recreation Grove on the east are 
under condemnation; and the Merced and Laurel Hill sites ore 

-30- 



'■ 






■ ■•.■' 



■ 



.- 



' ■ 



under contract on a lease purchase plan. The 42.4 acres already acquired are 
appraised at 9452,900 f or the sites. Including the improvements on them they 
cost ,1:665,000. However, these improvements (residences, apartments, flats, etc.) 
are of no valuo to the department for playground purposes and are to be razod 
to permit development. In the meantime, those still remaining have been rented 
pending easing of the housing shortage and the provision of funds for construc- 
tion. 

Almost twenty years ago the Recreation Department made a survey of what 
it considered the recreation needs of the city based on standards set by 
recreation authorities. These standards call for ten acres of public park and 
recreation space for each thousand of the population, with the requirement that 
neighborhood playgrounds be located within walking distance of each home (from 
one-quarter to not more than one-half mile) and larger district playficlds, for 
field sports like baseball, within one-half mile to a mile. With these 
standards as a basis, the department in 1934 prepared "an ideal theoretical plan 
of playground distribution for San Francisco, based on a population of 700,000 
people". This plan has grown into a program for the improvement of the prop- 
erties already under its jurisdiction and further expansion. It now includes 
the following elements: 



1. Rehabilitation of a dozen existing playgrounds, and improvement 
of others by the addition of bleachers, convenience stations, 
fieldhouscs or centers, seme -with swimming pools 

2. Provision for the relocation of Father Crowley Playground, which 
lies in the path of the projected freeway to the Bay Bridge 

3. Construction of playgrounds and recreation centers on sites already 
acquired and still unimproved or in the process of acquisition 

4. Acquisition of additional sites in areas still unserved and their 
improvement with the required facilities 



-31- 



. 



• 



5» Extension of lighting facilities to permit night use of twenty 
playfields beyond those now thus equipped or being equipped 

6. Development of Phelan Beach as a water sports center; and 
acquisition and development of another beach at Sea Cliff at 
the foot of 25th Avenue 

7. Construction of a little theater at Rossi Playground to provide 
for the dance and dramatic units, with complete facilities for 
costume design, set construction and rchearsels 

8. Construction of a new children's museum and youth handicraft 
center at Corona Heights on the site already acquired 

9. Acquisition of a site and improvement thereof as a day camp 
for children 

10. Acquisition of a mountain camp for children 

11. Increase of the capacity of Cnmp Mather 

12. Construction or acquisition of a central building to house the 
administrative and supervisory staffs, as well as special 
activities such as photography, motion picture, weaving, etc. 

13. Construction of a corporation yard, with storehouse and shops 
to house the department's motor and maintenance equipment 



It involves the construction and equipment of 18 new playgrounds; 19 
large community centers with gymnasia, handicraft and club rooms, kitchen and 
sanitary facilities; 20 smaller club or field houses differing only in the 
omission of gymnasia; 6 or 7 swimming pools, some of which will be integral 
parts of centers, where completed plans do not make such integration too 
difficult; and bleachers or grandstands on seven playfields. (See Appendix III, 
for detailed list of proposals) 

This is largely the program recommended in the Master Plan for Youth* 
It is an ambitious program, calling for a total outlay of more than .'?12,800,000. 
of which 0238,000 is already available, thus requiring 512,600,000 additional 
to be raised by the proposed bond issue* 



-32- 



The details with regard to the individual playgrounds and other 
facilities now operated or projected, together with estimates of cost may 
be found in Appendix J. They are summarized in the following 

tabulation: 



Table 5 
SUMMARY OF AREA, VALUE AND ESTIMATED COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT 
OF PROPERTIES CONTROLLED AND IN USE, FULLY ACQUIRED BUT UNDEVELOPED , IN PROCESS 
OF ACQUISITION, AND PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION BY THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT 



Present acreage 

Appraised values: 
Land 
Improvements 

Total Value 



Proposed acreage 

Estimated Costs: 
Land 
Grounds 
Buildings 
Equipment 

Total 
Funds on hand 



Acquired In process Proposed 
Controlled but of for 

and in use undeveloped acquisition acquisition 



435.66 



31.71 



$ 385,960 

1,865,150 

4,682,390 

197,850 



723,500 

881,550 

24,746 



10.66 



L-,657,650 $ 289,900 $ 167,000 
529,600 



$5,187,250 $ 289,900 | 167,000 



37.08 



430,693 

802,750 

703,650 

30,600 



259.98 



Total 



478.05 



$5,110,550 
529,600 

$5,640,150 



297.06 



$ 869,800 $ 1,686,453 

543,500 3,934,800 

623,700 6,891,290 

66,638 319,834 



37,131,350 $1,629,796 $1,967,693 §2,103,538 $12,832,377 
23,350 44,796 163,543 7,538 238,227 



Balance Required $7,108,000 51*585,000 $1,805,150 £2,096,000 012, 594, 150 



As was stated above, the appraised values take no account of the costs 
of development and construction of the playgrounds. It can nevertheless be 
seen that it is now proposed to spend much more for the rehabilitation of and 
additional facilities for the playgrounds and centers already in use than has 
boon spent on them in the almost forty years of the department's functioning. 
The entire program will mean tripling the present investment in organized re - 
re at ion. 



-33- 



■! 



Chapter 4 
SAN FRANCISCO'S RECREATION AREAS 

School Playground Areas 

In addition to the above properties under the Recreation Department, 
there arc also, of course, the playgrounds attached to the schools. In a study 
made some three or four years ago, it was estimated that those attached to tho 
elementary and junior high schools alone occupy about 85 acres. The work 
program of the Recreation Department for 1947-48 shows that tho 33 schoolyards 
being supervised throughout the year range from .21 to 3.29 acres and have an 
area of almost 33 acres, or an average of almost an acre each. In view of 
the large playficlds attached to the high schools, it must be evident that thr 
above estimate of 85 acres is very conservative. 

The latest survey of the Real Estate Department credits the Recreation 
Department with 327.74 acres of land valued at -$16,434,487. This includes all 
the parcels listed above as leased to and used by the Recreation Department 
except that within the boundaries of Sigmund Stern Recreation Grove. Even 
eliminating these, it would seem conservative to figure another third, or 110 
acres, with a value which may be as much as $5, 000, 000. as also available for 
recreational uses. 

Park Properties 

It is the park properties, of course, which provide the most extensive 
areas for public recreation. The Real Estate Department summary gives these a 



-34- 



' I . . - . • • • • ' 

' ' ' • 

■■■■'.. - 









' 






total of 2,543.66 acres with a value of 031,845,850. These figures include tho 
properties shown in the previous chapter to have been transferred to the 
Recreation Department. Because of the duplication, as well as the inclusion 
of boulevards and the fact that Harding Park Golf Course is on property- 
belonging to tho Water Department, on independent tabulation has been made 
and is presented 'in Table 6 on the following page. 

Adequacy of Are as Devoted to Recreation Use 

Including the parkways and boulevards maintained by the Park Department, 
there r,re now 3,506 acres set aside for or devoted to public recreation o^. ail 
kinds, both passive and active, of which 655 acres are outside the limits of 
the City and County. On the basis of San Francisco's present civil and 
military population of 812,400 (Chamber of Commerce - January 1, 1947),. z is 
means 4.3 acres per mileapita. This is considerably less than tho standard 
of 10 acres per thousand population set by recreation experts; but it does not 
mean that this city is hopelessly behind and must develop a program of 
expansion to double its present recreational areas. 

In "Budgeting the Land", a master plan report on "the presort and 

prospective uses of land in the City and County of San Francisco" issued k --; 

the City Planning Commission on November 30, 1944, 555.7 acres privately 

owned, of which all but 40 acres represent two privately oraied golf 

country clubs in the southwestern part of the city, are considered as equally 

available for recreational uso. Besides, the report goes on to say (page fr'c" t 

"Those are supplemented by the open spaces provided on three sidss 
of San Franciscc by tho -waters of the Pacific, the Golden Gate and 
the Bay. To tho ciouth, also, the Son Bruno Mountains form a natural 
open spacer ?he?e ±'".cz:: an important part of the natural reereo.ticr.a3. 
resources of the si'.c, and preserve a feeling of spaciousness bra': :'■.-• 
a priceless asset. Within the city, too, ore heights which are still 
open and unspoiled. _ • 

-35- 



. 



■' 



Table 6 

AREA AFD APPRAISED VALUE OF PROPERTY 

WIDER CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF PARK DEPARTMENT 



Area in Appraised 

acres Land Improvements 

Small Parks and Squares (l) 370.53 §16,934,400 $1,042,000 

Marina Blvd & Yacht Harbor 61.33 1,500,000 

McLaren Park 258.65 (2) 800,000 

Fleishhacker Playfield and Zoo 89.57 355,650 920,900 

Golden Gate Fark and Panhandle 1,040.40 8,200,000 1,667,000 (3) 

Lincoln Park Golf Course 202.75 1,625,000 978,000 (4) 

Harding Park Golf Course 200.00 (5) 1,000,000 21,000 

Sharp Park (San T 1ateo County) 454.72 181,900 25,800 

Total 2,677.95 $30,596,950 $4,654,700 



(1) See Appendix II, for detailed list, Excludes properties 
transferred to Recreation Department under former charter 
provisions. 

(2) Total of 320 acres projected. 

(3) Most of this represents the aquarium and museums, donated. 

(4) Mostly the Palace of the Legion of Honor, donated. 

(5) This is the acreage maintained as the golf course and approaches, 
at a value estimated at #5,000 per acre. The total area of the 
Lake Merced lands of the Water Department is 743.46 acres, of 
which the lake covers 3G8, leaving 275.46 acres of land. The 
total is valued at $1,890,000. 

Note; To the above may be added the parked strips and parkways main- 
tained by the Park Department, of which Sunset Boulevard is 
credited to the Department of Public Works. They arc as follows 



Appraised 
Area value 

Dolores Street 2.75 acres 

Great Highway and Esplanade 140.00 

Park-Presidio Boulevard 23.14 $728,000 

Sunset Boulevard 54.11 665,000 

The total is 240 acres; but the Park Department claims 85 acres for 
Sunset Boulevard. The 20 acres purchased for the Stanley Street 
Parkway, valued at $94,000, are omitted from the foregoing. 

-36- 



l * I 



"Another unusual feature of come recreation importance is the location 
within the city of 4 great Military Reservations. (These have a 
total area of 1,837 acres, very little of -which is built upon and 
only the 6 acres in Julius Kohn Playground have been accounted for 
above.) These permanent open spaces, largely accessible to the public 
except in time of war, have assured the perpetuation of the natural 
landscape at points of interest. 

"Tlhen to all these we add the Ocean Beach along the Great Highway, the 
large golf links in the Merced area, and the permanent open spaces of 
the water lands at Laguna de la Merced, provision for what are known 
as regional or "district" parks is seen to be well above average. 
This is especially true when the accessibility, over the two great 
bridges, of all the scenic and recreational splendors of Marin and 
the East Bay region is taken into account. Nor can we- forget the 
esplanade along the Pacific, the yacht harbor at the Marina, or the 
many resorts down the peninsula, and toward Santa Cruz. M 

The nearly 24,000 acres of reservoir lands in San Mateo County along 
Skyline Boulevard, valued at $6,000,000. may also be considered as contributing 
to the open effect and serving as a regional park. As a matter of fact, there 
are equestrian trails on the Crystal Springs properties for the use of -which the 
T^ater Department issues permits without charge. 

Although Lake Merced is referred to, practically all the properties of 
the Hater Department within the limits of the City and County may also be in- 
cluded, because, with few exceptions, they are open spaces due to their present 
or prospective use as reservoirs. Indeed, many of them con even be concreted 
over and sodded for active recreational use. At the very least they can be 
beautified by landscaping around the edges, as many of them ore already, and 
serve as neighborhood parks and squares for passive recreational use. In 
addition to the nearly 42 acres of Lake Merced lands across the county line 
in San Mateo, there are 1,080 acres of water lands within the city limits, a 
total of 1,122 acres, of which 120 are in the name of Hetch Hetchy. Their 
appraised value is more than $4,000,000. As 242 acres have already been 
accounted for in the Harding Park Golf Course and Crocker-Amazon Playground, 
888 acres may be added in this summation, with a value of about $2,925,000, 



-37- 






- 



■- 






Table 7 

SUMMARY OF LAFB AREAS AVAILABLE FOR RECREATION 



Appraised 

value 

Recreation Department 200 478 .59 $ 5,110,550 

Education Department - 110 .13 Est. 5,000,000 

Parks and Squares 455 2,678 3.30 30,596,950 
Boulevards 

Water properties 42 1,122 1.30 4,075,500 

$46,276,000 

Less Duplications _-_ 242 .30 1,150,000 

Total City and County 697 4,386 5.40 s *45, 126,000 
Private Facilities 



Military Reservations (net) 



Area 


in Acres 


Acres 


Outside 




per 


city 


Total 


mil cap it a 


200 


478 


.59 


- 


110 


.13 


455 


2,678 


3.30 


- 


240 


.30 Pi 


42 


1,122 


1.30 


697 


4,628 


"5770 


___ 


242 


.30 


697 


4,386 


5.40 


- 


355 


.44 


- 


1,831 


2.25 



Grand Total 697 6,572 8.09 

Proposed Acquisitions 160 359 (l) .45 2,000,000 

Including Proposed 857 6,931 8.54 $47,126,000 

(l) Includes 62 acres required to complete McLaren Park, estimated 
roughly at $5,000 per acre. 

If all these areas be added to the 3,506 acres shown previously as 
owned and controlled by the three departments concerned with recreation, the 
results will be as shown in Table 7. All told, the City and County already 
has 4,386 acres (5.4 acres per thousand population) used for or having a 
potential value for recreation, with a value well in excess of $45, 000, 000. 
Of this area 697 acres are outside the city limits, though all but the 200 
acres in Camp Mather lie just beyond the county line. If all the area proposed 
for acquisition were actually acquired, the total would be increased to almost 
4,750 acres, of which 360 acres will be in the Sierras. Thus the publicly 
owned areas within the county or just over the county line would rmount to 
5.85 acres per milcapita. 

With the inclusion of the private recreational areas and the military 
reservations, there would be a total of 6,931 acres of permanently open area 

-38- 



used or suitable for recreation of some kind, with a value of upwards of 
$50,000,000 for tho oity owned. land alone. This is more than 8.5 acres per 
thousand population. It is doubtful whether any other city can make a 
comparable showing. 

The fact is that in a prior report on Land Use, the City Planning 
Commission stated that the standard adopted by national authorities was 5 
acres for each thousand persons. In the later report on "Budgeting the Land" 
referred to above, the commission stated that "in comparison with other 
cities, San Francisco stands well near the top of tho list, both as to acres 
of public parks and recreation space, and as to the proportion of the whole 
set aside to these uses." This statement was based on a tabulation evidently 
less complete, showing 2,509 acres within the city publicly owned. On the 
basis of the 1945 population this meant 4 acres per milcapita. In support 
of the claim-, the report presented the table (Table 12, page 35) reproduced 
on the following page. 

If such a showing is made on the basis of a little more than 2,500 
acres, what should be said on the basis of more than 6,900, including that 
slated for purchase and privately owned? San Francisco has only 28,340.5 
acres within its borders from shore line to the county line. Even if it be 
assumed that the two private golf courses will ultimately be cut up into 
building sites and built upon, the permanent open space remaining for actual 
and potential recreational use will represent a fifth of the total acreage. 

There are those who question the relationship of acreage to population 
as a measure of the adequacy of recreational space. In a report of the New 
York City Department of Parks, "Eight Years of Park Progress", issued in 



-39- 



3.9 


2.1 


3.8 


8.3 


3,2 


6.1 


3.1 (3) 


9.2 


3.0 


11.6 


2.2 


5.0 


1.7 


4.4 



Table 8 

PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION AREAS 
11 Cities Compared - 1940 

Acres per Percent of 

City 1,000 Persons (l ) Gross Area (2) 

Boston 4.8 (3) 13.5 

Cleveland 4.4 8.3 

Philadelphia 4.3 9.8 

• 

SAN FRANCISCO 4.0 8.9 

Los Angeles 

St. Louis 
Pittsburgh 

Buffalo 
New York 
Chicago 
Detroit 

(1) From "Municipal and County Parks in United States" - 1940, 
except San Francisco and Detroit. 

(2) From Regional Plan Bulletin, Few York - 1941 

(3) Includes acreage outside city limits. 

It should be noted incidentally that Boston and Cleveland which 
make the best showing are both cities in which organized recrea- 
tion is a division of the park department. 



October 1941, the statement is made that "There are no uniformly accepted 

standards to determine the adequacy of parks and playgrounds in a community. 

Acreage is a particularly senseless measure of park needs." Citing the Bronx, 

which has the greatest park area, the report continues: 

"but this doesn't prove that it has adequate recreational facilities, 
as there arc still neglected congested areas remote from the big 
parks which are not easily accessible to all of the people of the 
borough. A small playground in a congested section may be of vastly 
more importance to the health and welfare of the community than the 
distant park of large acreage, though both are needed. 



-40- 



"Similarly there is no such thing as a fixed percentage of park 
area to population. Only statisticians and academic theorists use 
these two formulae. Sensible, practical people know that the 
answer depends upon the actual problems of the city to the question 
and not on a slide rule." (page 10) 

The situation is the same here. Much of the acreage is in large plots 
serving the city as a whole; and the peculiar topography of the city serves to 
cut some districts off in pockets. The Planning Commission's report cited 
above stressed the unsatisfactory situation as regards the smaller neighbor- 
hood parks and provision for playgrounds in the densely occupied parts of the 
city. They arc shown to be: 

"scarcely half the normal provision as recommended by recreation 
authorities. Furthermore, the distribution is such as to provide 
these spaces least generously where they are needed the most - in 
the Downtown, Western Addition, South of Market and Mission 
Districts, which have only 2f of their total area in parks and play- 
grounds. Over one-third of the people of San Francisco dwell within 
these areas, and the vast majority of visitors of the City sojourn 
there, but they contain less than 100 acres of open space in all, 
including the Civic Center Plaza." (pages 34-5) 

The program of expansion of the Recreation Department and that of the 
Master Plan for Youth aim to correct this situation. In view of the limited 
area of the city and the proportion shown as already permanently set aside as 
open spaces, it becomes imperative to budget the land carefully - to make the 
most efficient use of available properties and facilities. It is doubtful if 
San Francisco can afford to take much more of its 44.3 square miles off the 
tax rolls. 



-41- 



Chapter 5 

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 



Activities of Recreation Department 

The operations of the Recreation Department embrace the following 

activities : 

43 Playgrounds, including one in Sigmund Stern Recreation Grove, of 
which nine are lighted for use at night 
6 Community centers attached to as many playgrounds 

1 Community center, Hayes Valley, with separate facilities for boys 
and for girls 

33 Schoolyards all year, after school, Saturdays, holidays and vaca- 
tions 

11 Schoolyards additional during the summer vacation (In 1941 there 
were 40) 

19 School gymnasia, evenings the year round 

2 Centers in junior high schools s Roosevelt, 5 evenings weekly 

Raphael Weill, 2 evenings weekly 
1 Picnic grounds and outdoor theater - Sigmund Stern Recreation Grove 
1 Indoor swimming pool, privately owned and leased for daytime use 

only 
1 Outdoor swimming pool, for six months of the year 
Special activities, as follows: 

Music and drama center - now conducted at John Muir and Everett 

Junior High 
Drama workshop, providing costumes, puppets, etc. for festivals 

and celebrations 
Photography center, just fitted up anew for a temporary period 
at the Southside Center until the acquisition of permanent 
quarters in a central activities building 
Junior Museum, with handicrafts and gardening activities 
8 Teen-age centers: 

3 on premises leased for that purpose only 
5 on playground ficldhouses or community center buildings, 
counting Hayes Valley as a single unit for this purpose 
11 Recreation units or community centers in Federal housing develop- 
ments, three of which are permanent and the others in such temp- 
orary housing developments as Hunters Point and related units 
1 Day camp operated during summer months - in Stern Grove this summer 
1 Family camp in the mountains - Camp Mather 



-42- 



To the foregoing may be added Phelan Beach, -which, although 
undeveloped and given only occasional attention by a clean-up crew, is well 
patronized and popular with the public. 

There was a weaving center also, which had to be given up, (tempor- 
arily, it was hoped) when the rental asked for the quarters occupied was 
increased greatly. Tho equipment has been stored and it is planned by the 
department to install it again in the central activities building v/hen 
acquired. 

On the playgrounds and centers owned and controlled by the department 
there are the following play facilities: 

Table 9 

PLAY FACILITIES ON PLAYGROUNDS AND CENTERS 

OTOED AND CONTROLLED BY RECREATION DEPARTMENT 

7 Recreation center buildings 

10 Club houses 

11 Field houses 

12 Bleachers or grandstands 

24 Regulation baseball diamonds 
33 Softball fields 

44 Outdoor basketball courts 
5 Indoor basketball courts 

45 Removable volleyball courts 
86 Tennis courts 

5 Handball courts 

3 Golf putting and driving greens 

37 Horseshoe courts 

38 Small children's tanbark play areas 
21 Large turfed play areas 

Bocci ball courts at North Beach Annex 
Archery courts at Stern Recreation Grove 
Cricket field at Julius Kahn Playground 
Garden plots at the Junior Museum 
Track and field facilities at two playgrounds 

There are bowling greens at what is sometimes referred to as Wawona 
Playground, the northeastern portion of the Sigmund Stern Grove on the street 
level. This is a beautifully landscaped plot now practically idle. It is the 



-43- 



Table 10 

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IK GOLDEN GATE PARK 



Location 

ARBORETUM 

ARCHERY FIELD 

BEACH CHALET RECR. FIELD 



"BIG REC" (RECREATION VALLEY) 
BOWLING GREENS 

CARD SHELTER (ALVORD LAKE) 

CHILDREN'S QUARTERS 



EQUITATION FIELD 
FLYCASTING POOL 



GOLDEN GATE PARK STADIUM 



HANDBALL COURTS 
HORSESHOE COURTS 



KEZAR PAVILION 
KEZAR STADIUM 
"LITTLE REC" 

MUSIC CONCOURSE 
SPEEDWAY MEADOW 
SPRECKELS LAKE 

STOW LAKE 
TENNIS COURTS 



MUSEUMS 
CONSERVATORY 



Facilities 

Horticultural and arboricultural exhibits 
Archery- 
Football; soccer; training quarters; 
convenience station 

2 baseball diamonds; convenience station 

3 bowling courts and clubhouse; convenience 
station 

Cards; chess; checkers; convenience station 

Small children's playground with sand pits, 
slides, swings, model farm house; donkeys; 
kiddie car track; convenience station; lunch 
room and refreshment stand 
Stables; horseback riding 

3 flycasting pools, angler's lodge and 
convenience station 

Football practice; bicycle track; polo; track; 
trotting; 2 training quarters buildings; 2 
convenience stations 

4 courts 

Horseshoe courts and clubhouse; convenience 
station 

Basketball 

Football; track; festivals 

Baseball and football practice 

Band concerts; U convenience stations 

Baseball diamond 

Model yacht clubhouse; convenience station 

Boating and canoeing; ticket booth 

20 courts and clubhouse; volley ball court; 

convenience station 

Aquarium; Simson African Hall; North American 

Hall; de Young Museum 

Horticultural and floriculture! displays 



-44- 



Table 11 
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN PARKS AND SQUARES 
OTHER THAN GOLDEN GATE PARK AND FLEISHHACKER PLAYFIELD 

Park or Square Facilities 

ALAMO SQUARE Tennis court; children' s playarea; convenience station 
ALTA PLAZA 3 tennis courts; children's area; convenience station 
BALBOA PARK 2 baseball fields; 7 tennis courts; 2 convenience stations 

BERNAL SQUARE 2 baseball fields claimed. Too narrow but the game played 

there 
BUENA VISTA PARK 2 tennis courts; convenience station 
DUBOCE SQUARE Children's play area; convenience station; baseball played 

FRANKLIN SQUARE Tennis court (abandoned); convenience station; baseball played 
GARFIELD SQUARE Children's area; convenience station; free play 
HOLLY PARK CIRCLE Baseball diamond; 2 tennis courts; 2 handball courts; 
children's play area; convenience station 

HUNTINGTON SQUARE Sand box; convenience station for females 
LAFAYETTE SQUARE 2 tennis courts; large play area; convenience station 
LARSEN PARK 2 tennis courts; large play area; convenience station; ball 
played 

McCOPPIN SQUARE Baseball diamond; 2 tennis courts; children's play area; 

convenience station 
McKINLEY SQUARE Children' s play area 
McLAREN PARK Baseball field; softball field; children's play area; 

convenience station 

MISSION PARK Basketball court; 5 tennis courts; children's play area; 

card shelter; convenience station; baseball played 
MOUNTAIN LAKE U tennis courts; children's play area; card shelter; 

convenience station 
PANHANDLE Small children's playground; convenience station 

PARKSIDE SQUARE Children's play area; convenience station 



SUMMARY OF FACILITIES 

7 Baseball fields 

2 Softball fields 

1 Basketball court 

37 Tennis courts (2 unused) 

2 Handball courts 

L4 Children's play areas and 1 sand box 

3 Card shelters (probably more) 
19 Convenience stations 



-45- 



contention of the department that the failure of bowling devotees to use these 
groens can be overcome by the construction of c. clubhouse - and such a facility- 
is part of the expansion program. 

While the above inventory does not show any card shelters, there is 
an excellent one at Rossi Playground on the detached lot transferred from the 
Department of Public Works. Facilities for handicrafts are to be found at 
many of the centers and fieldhouses. 

The foregoing does not show how many clubrooms, kitchens, showers and 
gymnasia there are in the centers and fieldhouses; nor the area of turfed 
fields. 

Park Facilities for Play 

The varied recreational facilities available to the public in Golden 
Gate Park are listed in some detail in Table 10. The play facilities to be 
found in the numerous parks and squares scattered throughout the city are 
similarly listed and inventoried in Table 11. 

In Fleishhacker Playfield, in close proximity to the zoological 
gardens, there is a large free children's play area to accommodate the crowds 
which patronize it. In addition to such commercial features as ferris wheel, 
merry-go-round, donkey track and miniature railroad, there is a 30 x 40 foot 
sand box and a 30 x 80 foot wading pool, together with swings and slides, a 
convenience station and a mothers' building. The open air swimming pool, 
1,000 feet in length, is noted, the scene of many championship swimming meets. 
The trained seal exhibit is popular. 



-46- 



. 



In addition to the aquarium and the museums located in Golden Gate 
Park, there are the San Francisco Museum of Art atop the Veterans' Auditorium 
in the Civic Center and the Palace of the Legion of Honor in Lincoln Park, 
Although these museums are not operated by the Park Department, they are 
supported by public funds wholly or partly budgeted as are other municipal 
expenses. 

Similarity of Park and Recreation Areas 

San Francisco is thus maintaining an extensive and elaborate system 
of public recreational facilities. Although there are many special facilities 
in the parks not to be found in the playgrounds operated by the Recreation 
Department, and vice versa, there are others in both departments which are 
identical. In both we find swimming pools, baseball, softball, basketball, 
tennis, handball, slides, swings, tanbark areas, card shelters, bowling 
greens. Both have large turfed areas available for free play. And there is 
likelihood that there will be duplication or similarity of even special 
facilities. Plans for park improvements call for barbecue pits in Golden Gate 
Park and Fleishhacker Playfield. The development of McLaren Park suggested by 
the City Planning Commission includes not only "at least three areas for active 
play and use by surrounding neighborhoods," but also, among other features, an 
outdoor theater and a youth camping area, as well as picnic and barbecue areas. 

Frequently the facilities in the park properties differ in nowise from 
similar facilities in Recreation Department playgrounds. Were it not for the 
absence of the neatly lettered, distinctive signs of the Recreation Commission, 
as well as the presence of the playground director with his or her distinctive 
armband, it would be impossible to distinguish many a park or square from a 



-47- 



playground. How tell Douglass or Rossi playgrounds from park squares like 
Mission? How many citizens know whore, on Nineteenth Avenue, Sigmund Stern 
Recreation Grove ends and Larsen Square begins? Or that Parkside Square is 
not a part of Pine Lake Park, now under condemnation for addition to Sigmund 
Stern Grove? And who cares? 

For the properties of the two departments cannot be distinguished 
merely by their looks. Some Recreation Department properties are as beauti- 
fully landscaped as any park area; and some park properties are woefully run 
down and shabby. The chief difference, if any, is that park areas, in the 
main, have been allowed to retain their natural topography, whereas Recreation 
properties have been leveled off for better utility as playfields. But even 
that does not hold good in every case. Sigmund Stern Grove is a park in every 
sense of the word - almost a bit of virgin forest in the heart of the city - 
as is likewise the adjoining Pine Lake tract now being acquired - with facil- 
ities for picnicking which might well be copied in other of the city's parks 
if possible; for there is a noticeable deficiency in such facilities in San 
Francisco, 

The playground in McLaren Park, with its baseball and softball fields 
and children's apparatus, might easily be mistaken for a Recreation Department 
playground. The same is true of Parkside Square. The Margaret Hayward play- 
grounds, separated from Jefferson Square by Turk Street could easily be mis- 
taken for parts of that square, as indeed they were, though the two blocks are 
now under divided control and operation. At both ends of Hamilton Playground, 
in accordance with the agreement between the two departments, the Recreation 
Commission is maintaining grassy plots with some trees and shrubbery where 
adults may sit on park benches and sun themselves, or enjoy the passing scene. 



-48- 



Not only is it impossible to identify many of the properties of the 
two departments by the manner in which they have been developed, or the 
apparatus installed. It is just as impossible to distinguish them in many 
instances from the use to which they are subjected. Originally playgrounds 
were designed for children only - as places where they could play safely. 
Adults were not allowed. Parks, on the other hand, were primarily for adults 
or family use. This distinction no longer exists. Just now, wherever there 
is space, level or not, boys are trying to play baseball, even within sight 
of faded signs which still prohibit such play. And adults may be found 
sitting in playgrounds, -whether or not they are watching the children at play 
there. Besides that, the Recreation Department has adult programs. 

The chief differences between the two arise from the differences in 
emphasis and in the philosophy of the governing groups - differences which 
grow out of the past and ought to have disappeared long ere this. 

Organized recreation is one of the more recent forms of governmental 
activity; parks one of the oldest, well established, recognized. Most of the 
park acreage in San Francisco was set aside eighty years ago, by the Outside 
Lands Committee and the Van Ness Ordinance, 

The original concept of a park was that of an open space to sit or 
walk in, and for the esthetic enjoyment of its natural or formalized beauty. 
Some park areas have never lost their original character. Thus, except for 
the tennis courts, paths and retaining walls Buena Vista Park probably is 
today much the same as when it was laid out and developed in 1896, more than 
fifty years ago. 



-49- 



Park administrators are, first of all, horticultural experts and 
enthusiasts who look upon the maintenance of the landscaped areas in their 
care as an end in itself, entirely apart from their use by the public. Until 
comparatively recently such use has been a secondary consideration. Their 
gardeners are sought primarily from among those in love with nature, or in 
whom such love can be instilled, for whom soil cultivation, the laying out of 
grassy lawns, slopes and flower beds or the setting out of trees and shrubs 
are labors of love. 

Modern Park Concepts 

They had to learn, however, that parks were created to serve the 
people, rather than that people are merely taxpayers supporting parks. As a 
result of the growing industrialization and congestion of our communities and 
the replacement of the horse and buggy by the automobile, the concept of the 
proper function of the parks has changed. They have long outgrown the "keep 
off the grass" stage, and have, instead, become the "playgrounds of the 
people". Or perhaps we should use the term "play-park" which Edward M, 
Bassett, famous zoning expert and city planner of the Regional Plan of New 
York City and Its Environs felt expressed better the idea of a plot of land 
permanently open and available for play. 

The modern concept of parks does not require that they be guarded 
zealously against the intrusion of activities which might despoil them in the 
eyes of their guardians. The demands of the public for more varied and more 
active forms of recreation are not necessarily inconsistent with the pers-irva- 
tion and esthetic enjoyment of natural beauty. The modern park "combines all 
the objectives of the old - its beauty, its restfulness, its calm, together 



-50- 



with new objectives which meet the demands of the people, V Provision has been 
made for numerous forms of mass recreation within park boundaries - boating 
on park lakes, sailing of model yachts, zoological exhibits ind museums of art 
and science, with refectories to provide food for families spending the entire 
day there, or picnic areas within which to prepare their own, as well as 
commercial amusements like merry-go-rounds, ferris wheels, miniature railroads, 
donkey carts, in addition to free sand boxes, swings, teeters and wading pools 
for little children or tennis courts and baseball field for older children or 
adults. 

For, as Frederick Laxv Olmstead, noted city planner, said more than 

twenty years ago: 

"The whole park exists for no other purpose than to furnish forms of 
recreation for the public, and the business of educating and guiding 
the public to the full and proper use of the facilities provided, 
calls for the constant exercise in greater or less degree throughout 
all the parks of the same qualities of tact, imagination, sympathy, 
firmness and common sense that are so necessary in playground 
directors." (J. B. Nash in "The Organization and Administration 
of Playgrounds and Recreation", page 19) 

And that when it is done properly it does not mean destruction or 
despoliation can be seen in our own city, in the commercial aspects of the 
Children's Quarters in Golden Gate Park and in Fleishhacker Playfield. Any- 
one who has seen Playland, on the north shore of Long Island Sound in Rye, 
New York, where the Westchester County Park Commission maintains a miniature 
Coney Island including all the elements of a beach playground with all the 
features to be found at San Francisco' s own Playland at the Beach, will 
realize how much can be done to teach pleasure seekers to insist on beauty 
as well, and how much there is to be gained from the combination possible 
from such modern concepts. 



-51- 



The constant struggle against encroachment on park areas by those 
who see in park lands vacant sites eminently suitable for their purposes, 
appears to have engendered a spirit of opposition by park administrators to 
uses which do not fully conform to traditional park usage. Although they 
set aside lawns for Kay-time festivals and other mass celebrations, park 
proponents still oppose "abandoning large portions of remaining park areas" 
and "redesigning" them so they "would be devoted to other purposes." Park 
areas must be guarded jealously and "preserved for all the people." They 
still look askance at provision for rough play which might be too hard on 
their beloved walks and grassy fields. Paved playground areas are kept down 
to the minimum and placed where they will not mar the landscape, 

"Free Play" versus Organized Programs 

Besides that, there is, in San Francisco at least, an expressed 
disbelief in organized play - the opinion that it means forcing little Johnnie 
to play tiddlywinks when he would rather kick a football around. The facil- 
ities should be available for "free play", for uses expressing the individual 
desires of the users. Hence the Park Department has kept playground super- 
vision, which it seems to have undertaken only as a last resort, down to the 
minimum which they feel may have the effect of reducing, if not entirely 
suppressing the demand for supervision by an outside competitive group, .with 
different policies. 

In many of these matters the recreation enthusiasts are motivated 
by other considerations. Their thinking is based primarily on the idea of 
organized programs of play, with character formation as an end product, as in 
the schools - just as, in fact, their activities differ little from many which 



-52- 



are provided for children during school hours and for adults in the evening. 
The provision of and maintenance of grounds and the facilities thereon are 
merely a means to the service or function to be performed. But here, too, 
there has been a change with time. Now there are landscaped lawns and 
shrubbery surrounding playgrounds, to beautify the approaches or to conceal 
fences around bare play areas or paved courts. 

And the emphasis on organization does not necessarily mean a dis- 
belief in "free play." It was put thus by George Hjelte, now head of the 
recently consolidated Recreation and Park Department of the city of Los 
Angeles, in his book on "The Administration of Public Recreation": 

"They recognize that certain types of facilities should be 
available for "free play" or unscheduled activities of 
individuals and for self -organized or self -directed group 
activities. On the other hand they realize that a certain 
amount of promotion and organization will multiply the number 
of activities and participants in the program and make for 
greater efficiency and larger usefullness of the public facil- 
ities. They also appreciate the necessity for supervision of 
activities and the provision of positive leadership by trained 
recreation leaders so that the educational outcomes may be 
assured." (pages 293-4) 

Thus it is that, despite the fact that both departments draw their 
playground directors from the same civil service eligible lists and pay the 
same salaries, the agitation for supervision of many park areas by the 
Recreation Department does not cease. 

The Park Department is well equipped to maintain the physical 
facilities of the parks, the structures within then, the revenue producing 
facilities and the refectories., It is not, however, equipped to render the 
same kind of recreation service that is rendered in :he vlaygrounds and 
centers by the Recreation Department, Its supervisory personnel not only do 



-53- 



not share the philosophy required; they do not have the necessary techniques, 
There is no in-service training program for playground directors, who hence 
become little more than guardians or policemen. There are no handicrafts 
materials, no indoor facilities for days of inclement weather. In fact, 
there is little more than the provision of like physical facilities, and 
the mere scheduling of the use thereof. 



-54- 



Chapter 6 
RECREATION EXPENDITURES AND TAXATION 

Even this brief survey has indicated a vast increase in the facilities 
and activities of the two departments. In addition, there has been changes In 
the price level, the full effects of the most recent of which may not yet be 
apparent. Salary standardization, the five-day normal work week with adjust- 
ments for numerous situations deemed other than normal, sick leaves, holiday 
and vacation pay, retirement benefits and similar improvements in working 
conditions not only for municipal employees, but generally as well, with their 
effect on commodity prices, have been additional factors affecting costs. 

Park Department Costs and Tax Needs 

The net result has been a tremendous increase in the requirements for 
public recreation in the City and County of San Francisco. In the park system 
the growth has been more than tenfold since the beginning of the century - far 
in excess of th? growth of the system or the population* From the $250,000 to 
$300,000 spent annually U5 or 50 years ago expenditures rose to $1,752,000 for 
the fiscal year 1930-31. Of this $662,000 was for capital outlays and equipment, 
leaving ^1,090,000 for maintenance and operation. As revenues and other 
receipts were almost $44-0,000 the net costs which had to be met from general 
taxation was more than $1,310,000. 

Since then, the tax requirements were smaller until last year, because 
appropriations and expenditures for capital needs and equipment have been 
reduced materially. The upward march of maintenance and operating expenditures 
continued steadily, however. Within the past two years these have jumped by 



-55- 



47.3 percent - almost half* For the current year the budget calls for total 
appropriations of $3,080,000, of which $520,000 is for capital items and 
almost $2,660,000 for maintenance and operation. Receipts estimated at almost 
1931,600 bring the amount needed from general taxation to $2, 148, 000. Table 12 
shews the situation briefly since 1930. Expenditures for the same period by 
divisions can be seen in somewhat greater detail in .Appendix IV and revenues 
in Appendix VI. 

Table 12 

EXPENDITURES, RECEIPTS AND NET REQUIRED FROM TAXES 

PARK DEPARTMENT 
FISCAL YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1931, 1936 AND 1941-48 



Year 
ending 
June 30 


Expenditures 
Maintenance 
& operation 


or Appropri 
Outlay and 
equioment 


at ions 
Total 


Receipts 


Net 

from 

taxes 


1931 


$1,089,671 


$ 661,915 


$1,751,586 


$439,257 


$1,312,329 


1936 


1,084,821 


166,355 


1,251,176 


362,566 


888,610 


1941 

1942 
1943 


1,208,029 
1,367,805 
1,350,217 


245,602 
339,699 
257,170 


1,453,631 
1,707,504 
1,607,387 


395,241 
419,127 
447,952 


1,058,390 
1,288,377 
1,159,435 


1944 
1945 
1946 


1,473,705 
1,565,795 
1,736,621 


172,345 
191,595 
195,684 


1,646,050 
1,757,390 
1,932,305 


534,589 
618,019 
786,523 


1,111,461 
1,139,371 
1,145,777 



1947 2,228,424 (l) 642,410 (1) 2,870,834 (1) 918,900 (3) 1,951,934 

1948 2,558,476 (2) 521,382 (2) 3,079,858 (2) 931,600 (3) 2,148,258 

(1) Budget, including supplemental appropriations 

(2) Budget as adjusted for tax rate purposes 

( 3) Estimated 

Recreation Department Costs and Tax Needs 



Expenditures for organized recreation have risen much faster. In 
addition to the requirements for interest and redemption of the bonds which 
initiated the playground program, the first appropriation for the work of the 



-56- 



commission, that for the fiscal year 1908-09, was a modest $20,000. Of this 

$1,413*25 waS spent for the salary of the secretary and office expenses, and 

^15,254.25 for construction, a total of #16,667 • 50. The appropriation for the 

following year was increased to $35,000, of which more than #33,000 went for 

construction. Evidently, however, a feeble beginning was made on operation, 

as is indicated in the following items from the annual report for that year: 

Salaries: Secretary, Superintendent, 
Playground Directors and 

Stenographer $3*826.65 

Stationery 43.50 

Drinking Water 170.18 

Supplies for North Beach Playground 327.95 

Total $4,368.28 

The appropriation for the year thereafter, that of 1909-10, was again 
increased, to ^50,000. Almost two-thirds of this appropriation, .$32,890, was 
spent on construction and $894 for furnishings. Work was progressing on the 
two big playgrounds, with the swimming pool at North Beach still incomplete. 
However, both were operated that year, as well as two others. One was 
Madison, on Pacific Heights (probably Presidio Heights Playground) on which 
$2,728 was also spent for improvement. The other was Triangle, in the Ltission 
district at 28th Street and San Jose Avenue, evidently a privately owned parcel 
of land, on which %22 was spent for improvement. 

A total of $16,200 was disbursed for administration, and operation, 
of which $10,086 was for operation of the four playgrounds and a Fourth of 
July celebration. The details of the expenditures are given in Table 13, 

which appears on the following page. 



-57- 



- l rj 



Table 13 
EXPENDITURES OF PLAYGROUND COMMISSION 
FOR ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION 
FISCAL TEAR 1910-11 

Adminstrtn No Beach S outhside Madison Triangle Total 

Salaries $4,727.50 $2,927.75 52,228.50 $140.00 2300.00 $10,323.75 

Staty & Ptg 137.50 - - 137.50 

Operating Suppl 815.89 851.78 1,060.54 23.73 250.60 3,002.54 

Play Supplies 99.26 240.33 226.26 5.00 - 570.85 

Sundries 334.21 138.49 67.15 1.00 - 540.85 

4th July Celbrtn 1.624.85 - - - - 1.624.85 

Total $7,739.21 §4,158*35 $3, 582.45 0169.73 ;550.60 $16,200.34 



In addition to the work done on the above playgrounds, tv/o more were 
being prepared for use, one of which was Jackscn, which had been turned over by 
the Park Department in accordance with the terms of the charter amendment 
creating the Playground Commission. 

Within another five years, expenditures for operation and maintenance 
had risen to about '.-58,000, and to $72,400 for 1916-17, according to the annual 
report of the auditor. 

Expenditures continued to climb as more playgrounds were completed and 
placed into operation and the program was expanded to provide for new activities, 
such as the introduction of direct or s-at-large (now reclassified as supervising 
directors within their districts) as a means of combatting juvenile delinquency. 

For the fiscal year 1930-31, which the department celebrated as the 
twenty— fifth year of supervised recreation, a total of 3778,600 was spent of 
which C602,800 came from current funds and the balance from the Playground Bond 
Fund of 1931. Receipts were $33,682, of which .330,465 were Camp Mather 
revenues, which still account for all but a trifling part of departmental 



-58- 



revenues. Net requirements from taxes were approximately $570,000. Almost 
v368,000 was spent on capital outlays and equipment that year, the bond 
proceeds going toward the purchase of three playground sites, including 

St. Mary's. 

The situation since can be seen in brief outline in Table 14. 
Expenditures in somewhat greater detail may be found in Appendix VI. 

Table 14 
EXPENDITURES, RECEIPTS AND NET REQUIRED FROM TAXES 

RECREATION DEPARTMENT 
FISCAL TEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1931, 1936 AND 1941-48 

Year Expenditures or Appropriations 

ending Maintenance Outlay and 
J une 30 & operrtion equipment _ Tctal 

1931 410,740 $ 192,050(1) £ 602,790 (1) $ 33,682 

1936 466,123 163,085 629,208 

1941 608,220 65,197 673,417 

1942 642,977 75,286 718,263 

1943 613,390 29,306 642,696 

1944 733,993 18,024 752,017 

1945 869,895 83,567 953,462 

1946 951,522 80,066 1,031,588 

1947 1,134,963(2) 251,900(2)1,386,863(2) 84,600(4) 1,302,263 

1948 1,267,436 (3) 106,700 (3) 1,374,166 (3) 104,978 (4) 1,269,208 

(1) Additional expenditures were made from the Playground 
Bond Fund of 1931 

(2) Budgets, including supplemental appropriations 

(3) Budgets as adjusted for tax rate purposes 

(4) Estimated 

Within another decade, expenditures for maintenance and operation had 
risen by almost half, to more than ^600,000. However, as capital outlays wore 
much smaller, total expenditures were only some C70,000 above those made fro.'? 
current funds in 1931. Larger revenues from Camp Mather, plus some 013,000 



-59- 





Net 




from 


Receipts 


taxes 


$ 33,682 


3 569,108 


43,525 


585,673 


67,128 
63,260 
63,945 


606,2*9 
655,003 
578,751 


61,632 
75,434 
87,856 


690,335 
873,028 
943,732 



of rentals from houses on property acquired pending its development as play- 
grounds, doubled the receipts and helped to that extent to keep the increase 
from taxes down to less than .,.'40,000, 

During the next two years, because of the influence of the war en the 
availability of personnel, plus the fact that the armed services took over 
three of the largest playgrounds for war use, in addition to the difficulty 
of securing construction materials and the pressure on housing, which caused 
a sharp drop in outlays, there was some fluctuation in expenditures. The 
upward trend was nevertheless visible in the averages. 

Then, for the fiscal year 1943-44, provision was made for the 
recreation of war workers in the Hunters Point and other housing units. In 
addition, a number of teen-age centers were organized in another effort to 
combat rising juvenile delinquency. Respective expenditures of $21,353 and 
$17,543 f°r these new activities, along with higher costs for food and other 
commodities, helped to boost maintenance and operating expenditures to a new 
high. Despite a further drop in outlays and equipment costs to only $18,000 
the total again exceeded three-quarters of a million dollars, of which 
$690,000 came from general taxation. 

The following year saw another extension in activity, the school 
centers, with a modest expenditure of only $4,750 since tripled. Expendi- 
tures on teen-age centers, including rentals for quarters in districts where 
they could not be accommodated in departmentally owned buildings, more than 
doubled, as did, likewise, those in the housing units. Together these two 
activities alone accounted for $95,000 in the fiscal year 1945, an increase 
of almost $56,000 over the initial operations of the year before. Other 



-60- 



■ 
{ J- . 

■ 

■'..-■■•' 

■'■■■■..' 

: ' ■ •. 

■ ■• ■ - 






■ 



maintenance and operating costs were $$5,000 over those of the previous year, 
reflecting the influence of the factors listed above as affecting municipal 
costs generally. Including $65,000 more on outlays and equipment, total 
expenditures rose by more than $200,000 to $953,000. As the result of a 
$15,000 rise in receipts, the net requirements from taxes were #878, 000. 

For the fiscal year just ended the influence of present inflationary 
factors plus provision of slightly more than a quarter-million dollars for 
outlays caused a further jump of $435,000 in total appropriations above the 
expenditures of the fiscal year 1945 - all but $9,000 of which was reflected 
in the amount coming from taxes, which exceeded $1, 300,000. 

The comparable figure for the current fiscal year now appears to be 
less by $33*000. This is due in part to an increase of $20,000 in estimated 
receipts from higher rates at Camp Mather. It is due even more to a drop of 
6145,000 in provision for outlays and equipment, because of the policy 
determined upon to depend on bond issues for improvement programs. Despite 
some small savings (as in rentals for teen-age centers where the v/ork was 
dropped), increased salaries, m?re liberal retirement provisions and rising 
costs generally required increassd ajprooriations of $132,000 for maintenance 
and operation. 

It is interesting to note that provision for teen-age centers, though 
fewer in number, _ias risen to A; 7 8C0 and that for the housing units to more 
than |94;C00, Thus, withoul eonsideri ng the overhead in the form of the 
salaries and expenses of the supervising directors of these activities, the 
cost has grown in four years to 0-150,000, Inclusion of these items incre-res 
the total to more than $160,000, This still does not take into consideration 



-61- 



-••-:• - :•;.:-: 



.•■ :-' •-.. • . - '■;■ •- 



retirement costs of the personnel, nor the possible effect thereof on 
administrative activities. 

Combined Requirements for Park and Recreation Departments 

Excluding interest and redemption requirements on park bonds, the 
Park Department received for its purposes $273,197 during the fiscal year of 
1900-01. Of this sv9,100 mas from revenues and miscellaneous receipts. The 
rest, $272,197, was the net received from taxes. Ten years later (1910-11), 
the funds received for its use had grown to $419,525, of which #43,266 were 
from departmental receipts and $276,259 from taxes. These included a special 
appropriation of £15,000 in addition to the proceeds of the seven cent tax 
which was supposed to be the maximum. In addition the Playground Commission 
had an appropriation of $50,000 from the General Fund. Roughly, then, there 
was available for expenditure by the two services a total of #470,000, of 
which all but C'43,000 was derived from taxes. 

Within the next two decades (1930-31) the expenditures of the two 
services for maintenance and operation alone had grown to Cl, 500,000, with 
more than a million dollars additional for capital outlays and equipment, if 
the expenditures of the Recreation Department from bond funds be included. 
From current funds alone the two departments spent #2, 354,000. As current 
receipts amounted to $473,000, the balance which came from general taxation 
amounted to $1,881,000. 

What has happened since is shown in outline in Table 15 on the 
following page, which is similar to the tabulations presented above for the 
two departments individually. 



-62- 



Table 15 

EXPENDITURES, RECEIPTS AND NET REQUIRED FROM TAXES 

PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTiiENTS 
FISCAL YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1931, 1936 AND 1941-48 



Year Expenditures or Appropriations Net 

ending Maintenance Outlay and from 

J une 30 & operation eq uipment Total Receipts taxes 

1931 £.1,500,411 $853,965 (l) $2,354,376 (1) $472,939 £1,381,437 

1936 1,550,944 329,440 1,880,384 406,091 1,474,293 

1941 1,816,249 310,799 2,127,048 462,369 1,664,679 

1942 2,010,782 414,985 2,425,767 482,387 1,943,380 

1943 1,963,607 286,476 2,250,083 511,897 1,738,186 

1944 2,207,698 190,369 2,398,067 596,221 1,801,846 

1945 2,435,690 275,162 2,710,852 693,453 2,017,399 

1946 2,638,143 275,750 2,963,893 374,384 2,089,509 

1947 3,363,387 (2) 894,310 (2) 4,257,697 (2) 1,003,500 (4) 3,254,197 

1948 3,325,962 (3) 623,082 (3) 4,454,044 (3) 1,036,578 (4) 3,417,466 

(1) Additional expenditures wore made from the Playground Fund of 1931 

(2) Budgets, including supplemental appropriations 

(3) Budgets as adjusted for tax rate purposes 

(4) Estimated 

For the current fiscal year, as can be seen, a total of $3,826,000 
has been appropriated for maintenance and operation alone; and despite adoption 
of the policy of issuing bends for the postwar improvement program, another 
£628,000 was provided from current funds for special improvement and recon- 
struction projects and equipment necessary for replacement now that it is 
available after the dearth due to the war. The total of :j;4, 45-4, 000 is 
offset by anticipated receipts, almost entirely operating revenues, of 
Cl,036,600, leaving $3,147,400 to be provided from taxes. 

On the basis of the best available estimate of the present population 
this meons a per capita expenditure of C>5.50 of which 04.20 is to be derived 
from taxes. 

-63- 



Other Public Recreational Costs 

Large as the above amounts may seem for such purpose, it is by no 
means all that is raised and spent by the municipality for public recreation. 
Even without considering the physical and other recreational activities of 
the schools, there are the cultural services of the museums, the musical and 
other activities of the Art Commission and the cost of maintaining the war 
memorial and auditorium, which are also generally considered in this category. 
As Table 16 shows, expenditures for these services during the fiscal year 
1945-46, the last for which complete figures are available, amounted to almost 
0700,000; and almost £1,100,000 has been budgeted for the current year, of 
which £870,000 must come from taxes. Of the total, £.142,650 is for major 
improvements or renewals and £26,000 for equipment. Maintenance and operation 
require the remaining 0923,000. 



Table 16 

EXPENDITURES 1945-46 AND BUDGET FOR 1947-48 

MISCELLANEOUS RECREATIONAL SERVICES 



Services 


Expenditures 
1945-46 


Budget for 1947-48 
Appropriations Revenue Net from tares 


War Memorial 
S F Art Museum 
Art Commission 


£•169,475 

17,799 

105,522 


§219,650 

44,697 
141,125 


£ 85,000 
60,000 


£134,6:0 
44,69? 

81,125 


Palace Legion of Honor 
de Young Museum 
Steinhart Aquarium 


106,885 

154,471 

51,330 


156,898 

360,322 

71,627 


1,500 
250 


155,398 

360,072 

71,627 


Simson African Hall 
Auditorium 


9,741 

79,091 


7,500 
90,094 


75,000 


7,500 
90.094 


Total 
Parks and Recreation 


£ 694,314 
2,963,893 


£1,091,913 
4,454.044 


£ 221,750 
1.036,578 


£ 870,163 
3.417,466 


Grand Total 


£3,658,107 


£5,545,957 


£1,258,328 


£4,287,629 



-64- 



Thus, even before the influence of post war inflation and the effects 
of the recent increase in retirement benefits were felt, San Francisco spent 
a total of $3,658,000 for its public recreational services outside the educa- 
tional system. This was more than ,4.50 per capita, of which the park and 
recreation departments required $3.70 or 33.35 without outlays and equipment. 
The current budget shows total appropriations for all the above services 
amounting to 05,546,000 or £6.83 per capita, of which :;4,750,000 or .,5.85 
per capita is for maintenance and operation, and nearly $4, 300,000 or more 
than $5.25 must come from taxes. 

What this means may be seen by comparison with the largest city in 
the United States, New York City. The budget for the fiscal year 1947-48 
shows appropriations for maintenance and operation, including equipment, of 
$12, 508,717 for the park system, excluding the biggest zoos, but including 
organized recreation services, and 02,431,477 for the cultural and scientific 
activities. On the basis of a population of 7,625,000 this means per capita 
appropriations of $1.65 for parks and recreation plus 32 cents for the cultural 
activities, a total of $1.97 for all recreational activities other than those 
provided by the educational system. In all fairness it must be said that >e 
situation is not entirely comparable in that it is within the school budget 
that provision is made for after school and vacation playgrounds, school 
gardens and recreation centers which in San Francisco are operated by the 
Recreation Department. However, the $1,053,500 appropriated for these 
purposes add only 14 cents per capita. Even if the $547,000 budgeted for 
swimming instructors and the cost of coaching and organizing interschool 
athletics be added, it would mean only 7 cents more, making the total less 
than $2.20, This is still only about half as much per capita as the 



-65- 



appropriation during the same year for the park and recreation departments 
alone in San Francisco, 

Tax Levis s for Recreational Services 

The charter of 1897 provided, for the park fund, a minimum of five 
cents and a maximum of seven cents on each hundred dollars of assessed valua- 
tion of property not exempt from taxation. Effective with the fiscal year 
1921-1922, this was increased to seven cents minimum and ten cents maximum. 
With adoption of the present charter in 1932 this maximum became the minimum. 
There now is no ceiling. 

As for the Recreation Department, the charter amendment creating its 
predecessor Playground Commission authorized the Board of Supervisors to 
appropriate annually such amount as in their judgment was necessary or proper 
for purchase, development, equipment and maintenance of the playgrounds and 
recreation centers under the Commission's supervision. In the fall of 1924 
this was amended to a minimum of five cents in the tax rate, with a maximum of 
seven cents. As was true of the Park Department, this maximum became the 
minimum in the present charter - as it still is. 

The actual levy for park needs at the opening of the century was 
.O64.8 out of a total levy of §1.127 for city and county purposes - 6.21 percent 
of the total. For the next three years the levy was seven cents, or from 5«7 
to 6.5 percent of the total city and county levy which ranged from $1.12 to 
&1.2262. The addition of ,84 cents for park extension, including the purchase 
of the site of Mission Park and Telegraph Hill in 1904-05 brought the total 
levy to 6.73 percent of the total tax levy that year. By 1910-11 the total 
levy for city and county purposes had increased to &1.647. The $50,000 



-66- 



appropriation for the Playground Commission for that year represented just 
about one cent in the tax rate. For parks, in addition to the maximum seven 
cents called for by the charter, the Supervisors made a special appropriation 
of $15,000. Thus the levy for both funds came to 8.3 cents, a trifle more 
than 5 percent of the total tax levy. 

Because of the increased activities of the municipal government which 
increased greatly the tax levy for city and county purposes, provision for 
parks and recreation, despite the expansion of these services and the increased 
costs thereof, nevertheless represented a smaller proportion of the total rate. 
The situation since the fiscal year 1930-31 is presented in Table 17. 

Table 17 

ANNUAL TAX LEVIES FOR PARK AND RECREATION FUNDS 

AND PERCENT OF TOTAL CITY AND COUNTY TAX RATE 

FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1931 - 1947 



Fiscal 


Park 


Recreation 


Both 


County 


Percent 


of Total Tax R^ 


year 


Fund 


Fund 


Departments 


Tax Rate 


Parks 


Recreation 


Eoth 


1930-31 


.100000 


.070000 


.170000 


4.04 


2.48 


1.73 


4.21 


1931-32 


.100000 


.054616 


.154616 


4.04 


2.48 


1.35 


3.83 


1932-33 


.100000 


.070000 


.170000 


3.96 


2.52 


1.77 


4.29 


1933-34 


.100000 


.066950 


.166950 


3.48 


2.87 


1.92 


4.80 


1934-35 


.102964 


.068826 


.171790 


3.863622 2.59 


1.78 


4.32 


1935-36 


.109072 


.079584 


.188656 


3.681917 2.96 


2,16 


5.12 


1936-37 


.115674 


.069886 


.185560 


3.784 


3.06 


1.85 


4.90 


1937-33 


.126173 


.070000 


.196173 


3.871 


3.26 


1.81 


5.07 


1938-39 


.116052 


.071666 


.187718 


4.04 


2.87 


1.77 


4.65 


1939-40 


.130145 


.069858 


.200003 


3.937 


3.36 


1.77 


5.08 


1940-41 


.134666 


.072742 


.207408 


4.295 


3.14 


I.69 


4.83 


1941-42 


.163224 


.092023 


.255247 


4.396 


3.71 


2.09 


5.81 


1942-43 


.162452 


.074449 


.236901 


4.48 


3.63 


1.66 


5.29 


1943-44 


.158809 


.08U93 


.243002 


4.36 


3.6A 


1.93 


5.57 


1944-45 


.177261 


.114708 


.291969 


4.69 


3.78 


2.45 


6.23 


1945-46 


.177718 


.127712 


.305430 


4.83 


3.68 


2.64 


6.32 


1946-47 


.231787 


.148002 


.379789 


5.55 


4.18 


2.67 


6.84 



Source: Controller's annual reoorts 



-67- 



■ 1 



,,\ 



For 1930-31* two years prior to effectiveness of the new charter, 
both funds received the maximum required by the previous charter requirements, 
which later became the minimum. On the basis of the city and county rate of 
$4.04, the levy for the park fund was a trifle under 2\ percent of that total, 
whereas that for the recreation fund was just under 1-3/4 percent, so that 
together they required 4.21 percent of the tax levy. Since then, despite some 
fluctuations, the trend has been steadily upward. 

Since adoption of the new minimum levies provided in the charter of 
1932, that for the park fund began to rise above it within two years to ever 
higher levels, falling back only three times since, only to rise again even 
higher. Levies for the recreation fund have fluctuated considerably; and they 
even fell slightly below the minimum four times. The upward trend has never- 
theless been unmistakable. Both funds have, on the whole, been requiring ever 
larger proportions of the total tax levy, as they have risen ever higher above 
the required minima. 

It is only within the last four or five years that the rise in the 
levy for the recreation fund has been comparable to that of the park fund. 
For the year just completed both levies were more than double the minimum 
charter requirements. Together they were allotted almost 38 cents, which was 
6,34 percent of the total tax levy of $5.55. 

As this is being written, all the necessary adjustments have not 
been made and the tax rate for 1947-48 has not been computed. From present 
indications, however, tax requirements for the two funds will constitute ab^u. 
6 percent of the total levy - somewhat less than last year. Inclusion of ins 
requirements for the various cultural, musical and other recreational servxc = g 



-68- 



increases the proportion to 7.6 percent. As the tax rate seems likely to 
reach, if not exceed $6.00, the rate for the park and recreation funds should 
be approximately equal to that for the year just completed, and for all 
recreational services may reach 45 cents. 

In a statement on recreation planning in western states, made 
February 5, 1943, Major George W, Braden, Western Representative of the 
National Recreation Association said that studies had shown most western 
cities needed about twenty cents on the hundred dollars of assessed values, 
or two mills in "annual tax budget for total public recreation service, both 
active and passive, if they are to establish themselves on a 'pay as you go' 
basis avoiding periodical bond issues for the purchase and development of land 
and structures." Obviously, San Francisco had exceeded this figure even 
before current inflationary influences developed, but without having 
established itself on a "pay as you go" basis for its capital outlay needs. 

Adequacy of Financial Provision for Recreation 

In the recently revised edition of the International City Managers' 
Association handbook on "Municipal Recreation Administration," published in 
1945 j the impracticability of setting a "definite and universally applicable 
standard" for municipal recreation expenditures, was stressed because of the 
comparative novelty of the function and its rapid expansion. Moreover, 
communities differ widely in their objectives, the requirements for meeting 
them, and their capacity to finance the program, besides which costs in 
different parts of the country vary for the Scime facilities and services. 

It was nevertheless estimated that, to provide the program set as a 
standard, any American city would need to spend #1.50 for its organized program. 



-69- 



. - -I J :■ ■ '■ ■ :• ■ . 



that usually provided by a recreation department, for current expenses alone, 
exclusive of capital needs for extensions r.nd improvements. For the other 
municipal functions contributing to the recreation of the public, such as the 
"traditional services of the park department," a like sum would have to be 
added, making the total for all forms of recre f ?tion &3.00 per capita annually, 

"These figures are presented not as scientific or inflexible 
standards, but as a general indication of what expenditure would be required 
to provide a recreation program of the kind outlined." (page 411) 

It was admitted that such figures may seem "staggering" to some 
cities and that actual expenditures in most cities fall far below such amounts, 
though they are exceeded in some small communities. A study of the costs of 
maintaining park properties in 116 cities is cited showing an average of 89 
cents, with $1.19 reported in 26 Wisconsin cities and $1.08 in 29 Illinois 
cities in Cook County, which includes Chicago. For total recreation expendi- 
tures the Census Bureau data for 1942 indie rted an average of approximately 
$1.50 per capita in the 94 cities of more than 100,000 population, as compared 
with $1.80 in 1931. Sacramento is cited as having spent $3.70 and San 
Francisco $3.00 per capita. In view of the total expenditures cited, this 
would have required a population of 800,000, which seems higher than justified 
at the time, although, according to newspaper reports, that was the number of 
ration books issued. 

Obviously, material on the subject is scanty; but this city manages 
to secure mention in what there is. Thus, in a special supplement with the 
February 1946 issue of Survey i.admonthly, dealing with the subject "Recreation 
for Everybody," it was stated that the average community expenditure in 1944 



-70- 



was 51 cents, being highest in the South Atlantic states, with 91 cents. On 
the Pacific Coast it was about 63 cents; but in San Francisco it was 83 cents 
for the Recreation Department alone. The National Recreation Association is 
credited as the source of the data. Based on operating expenditures for that 
year as given in Table 14 above, such per capita would require the use of the 
786,590 population shown for the city in the sampling census of April, 1943* 
which included 86,000 service men. 

Generally the only comparative data available on a broad scale are 
those furnished by the Bureau of the Census in ibs annual publications of 
municipal financial statistics, now known as "City Finances", It is from 
this source that Tables 18 and 19 have been compiled to show the comparative 
expenditures for recreation of the fourteen largest cities, those with 
populations of more than 500,000, during the last five years for which such 
data are available, the fiscal years 1940-44* 

Even from these bare figures, and without reference to the popula- 
tion, it must be obvious that San Francisco's expenditures give her a rank 
much higher than her rank in population, which was twelfth in 194-0 and tenth 
in 1944* Furthermore, there is no evidence of such drastic wartime reduction 
of recreation expenditures as is manifest in the case of Los Angeles, Boston, 
Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. Reductions in San Francisco were confined to out- 
lays; but these were reduced far more drastically in every other one of the 
thirteen cities. Nor was there the same need to build expenditures up to 
minimum standards as in the case of Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland and 
Baltimore, 



-71- 



Table 18 
GENERAL EXPENDITURES FOR OPERATION 
TOTAL RECREATION ACTIVITIES (in thousands) 
CITIES OVER 500,000 POPULATION 
FISCAL YEARS 1940 - 1944 



City 1940 1941 1942 19A3 1944 

New York $13,013 $12,921 $13,284 $12,040 $12,825 

Chicago (1) 9,150 633 683 847 878 

Philadelphia 2,406 2,464 2,937 3,317 3,350 

Detroit 1,962 1,857 1,878 2,071 2,340 

Los Angeles 2,698 1,997 2,014 1,801 1,807 

Cleveland 905 919 1,104 1,058 1,233 

Baltimore 1,262 1,410 1,357 1,419 1,720 

St. Louis 1,641 1,555 1,659 1,666 1,843 

Boston 2,392 2,044 1,869 1,859 1,898 

Pittsburgh 1,184 926 993 925 974 

Washington 1,558 1,595 1,625 1,775 1,901 

SAN FRANCISCO 2,246 2,207 2,438 2,411 2,605 

Milwaukee 1,913 1,161 1,126 1,159 1,247 

Buffalo 1,369 1,366 1,415 1,362 1,365 

(1) The figures since 1941 are incomplete, excluding 

the expenditures of the Chicago Park District 

Source: Bureau of the Census, City Finances 



-72- 



Table 19 
GENERAL EXPENDITURES FOR OPERATION 
ORGANIZED RECREATION OTHER THAN GOLF COURSES (in thousands) 
CITIES OVER 500,000 POPULATION 
FISCAL YEARS 1940 - 1944 



City 1940 1941 1942 19.43. i2£4 

New York $3,067 $3,107 $2,948 $2,834 $3,131 

Chicago (1) 3,036 394 397 597 555 

Philadelphia 428 443 503 584 590 

Detroit 608 387 493 689 887 

Los Angeles 1,212 813 894 778 868 

Cleveland 292 292 279 298 403 

Baltimore 249 308 263 363 513 

St. Louis 276 207 213 219 227 

Boston 860 720 758 769 818 

Pittsburgh 300 201 228 188 197 

Washington 311 372 374 411 496 

SAN FRANCISCO 718 618 692 672 677 

Milwaukee 445 345 355 659 716 

Buffalo 353 339 363 345 360 

(1) The figures since 1941 are incomplete, excluding 

the expenditures of the Chicago Park District 

Source: Bureau of the Census - City Finances 



-73- 



In order to show the fact more clearly, per capita have been computed 
for 19 40 and 1944. They are presented in Table 20 below: 



Table 20 
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR OPERATION 
TOTAL RECREATION AND 0RG-«NIZED RECREATION OTHER THAN GOLF COURSES 
CITIES OVER 500,000 POPULATION 
FISCAL YEARS 1940 AND 1944 



City 



Population 

(in thousands) 

1940 1944 

Census Estimated 



Per Capita Expenditures for Operation 
Total Recreation Organized Recreation 
1940 1944 1940 1944 



New York 7,455 

Chicago 3,397 

Philadelphia 1,931 



Detroit 
Los Angeles 

Cleveland 

Baltimore 
St. Louis 
Boston 

Pittsburgh 
Washington 



1,623 

1,504 

873 

859 
816 

771 

672 
663 



SAN FRANCISCO 635 



Milwaukee 
Buffalo 



587 
576 



7,500 
3,352 
1,945 

1,655 

1,690 
903 

945 
825 

795 

650 
817 

750 

613 
603 



$1.75 

2.69 

1.25 

1.21 
1.79 
1,04 

1.47 
2.01 
3.10 

1.76 
2.35 

3.54 

3.26 
2.38 



$1.71 

(1) 

1.72 

1.41 
1.07 
1.36 

1.82 
2.23 
2.39 

1.50 
2.33 



'$0.41 
.89 
.22 

.37 
.81 
.33 

.29 

.34 

1.12 

.45 
.47 



3.47 (2) 1.13 



2.02 
1.23 



.76 
.61 



$0.42 
(1) 
.30 

.54 
.51 
.45 

.54 

.28 

1.03 

.31 
.61 

.90 (2) 

1.16 
.60 



(1) Complete figures not available, as the County P-irk 
District controls most of the facilities 

(2) On the basis of the larger population shown in the 
/.pril census, these become respectively $3.25 and 
86 cents 



The population figures used in the computation for 1940 are those of 
the official census. For 1944 the best available estimates, secured with help 
of the local library and the local office of the Census Bureau were used. 
There were the results of special censuses in Detroit and Los Angeles. For 



-74- 



San Francisco, the approximate figure from the telephone company's estimate 
for January first, 1944, vvas deemed preferable to the higher figures resulting 
from the special sampling census taken in April, because it was the middle of 
the year. The estimates for the other cities came originally from local 
sources euch as chambers of commerce, and reported t"> such national agencies 
as Rand McNally. 

Table 20 speaks for itself. San Francisco is well in the front rank 
of cities in recreation, if expenditures per capita may be taken as a reliable 
index. And while the figure for total expenditures is somewhat inflated 
because this city runs its own refectories instead of depending on concession— 
naires, the result would still be the same if allowance were made for this fact. 

In 194-0 Milwaukee and Boston were the only cities approaching San 
Francisco in expenditures for recreation. In the former city this was 
probably due to the combination of all recreational activities under the 
school authorities, and the figures are therefore probably more inclusive than 
in the others. The case of Boston is interesting because it does not bear out 
the theory that recreation must be a separate function to be strong; for in 
this city this activity has always been a division of the Park Department, Nor 
is that theory borne out in other cities. In Los Angeles recreation was 
separately administered; but it nevertheless suffered even worse than in 
Pittsburgh, where both parks and recreation are divisions in the Public ITorks 
Department. In Detroit, on the other hand, with a consolidated department, such 
reductions in the early years of the war were more than made up for later, so 
that per capita expenditures for 194-4- showed a substantial increase over those 
for 1940. 



-75- 



U ' • 



As for San Francisco, it is clear that the high standards, or at least 
the high total per capita expenditures were practically maintained despite a 
greatly increased population that moved the city up from twelfth to tenth 
place. It was this unusually heavy increase, due to the influx of service men 
and women, which is responsible for the decrease in the per capita for organized 
recreation, wherein the city ranked third. However its costs are, on both an 
absolute and a relative basis, considerably higher than most of the cities in 
its population class. 



-76- 



; ' .'■:. 



Chapter 7 

DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION 

Brief descriptions of the organizational structures of the two depart- 
ments are presented herewith: 

Recreation Department (Chart I) 

The Recreation Department is headed by an unpaid commission of seven 
members, of whom five are appointed by the Mayor for overlapping terms of four 
years each. The other two are the superintendents of parks and schools, 
ex-officio. The commission appoints, without regard to civil service, the 
Superintendent of Recreation who holds office at its pleasure. The superin- 
tendent's salary is subject to salary standardization. 

In the language of the "Classification of Duties of Positions in the 

Municipal Service," the SUPERINTENDENT, RECREATION DEPARTMENT, 

"Subject to administrative approval: has charge of and is responsible 
for the proper administration of the recreation department; develops 
plans and policies; plans and directs personnel and activities of 
the department; recommends improvements in policies, programs and 
other activities of the department; and supervises the maintenance 
and operation of all equipment and properties." 

All other employees are in the classified service and are appointed 
subject to civil service regulations. This is true of the Secretary to the 
Commission, whose duties include preparation of the commission's calendar 
and minutes, communications relating to commission action, and annual and 
special reports as well as handling the correspondence for members of the 



-77- 



commission. He is also responsible for the Superintendent's correspondence, 
and at the request of the Superintendent, prepares and delivers speeches on 
recreational activities and handles the public relations work of the department* 

On the whole, the work of the department is carried on under two 
divisions, as follows: 

Administration and maintenance, under a Business Manager 

Operation of recreational activities, under the Assistant Superintendent. 

There is a senior draftsman in charge of the engineering phases of the work of 
the department. An organization chart furnished by the department shows this 
activity to be related to the Business Manager. Actually he is responsible to 
and reports directly to the Superintendent. The same is true of the Camp 
Manager (Camp Mather) except for coordination of the business aspects thereof. 

The BUSINESS MANAGER, RECREATION DEPARTMENT, 

"Under general administrative direction: has charge of and is respons- 
ible for the proper administration of the business affairs of the 
recreation department; is responsible for the maintenance of proper 
departmental control and recording of expenditures; supervises all 
clerical, accounting and other procedures incident to the business 
administration of the department; supervises the maintenance and 
repair of physical properties, including playgrounds; is responsible 
to the recreation commission for carrying out the budgetary and 
other fiscal provisions of the charter and such procedures and 
regulations pursuant thereto as may be outlined by the controller; 
and performs related duties as required." 

He is actually in charge of the administrative work, which is divided up as 

follows: 

Accounting, with a Senior Bookkeeper in charge; 
Payroll and personnel, under a Senior Clerk; 
Purchasing, procurement and distribution of supplies 

and materials, under a Senior Clerk; 
Miscellaneous clerical snd stenographic services. 



The maintenance of grounds and structures, shown by the classification 

of duties statement to be a responsibility of the Business Manager, is in 

reality a major division, headed by a SUPERVISOR OF GROUNDS (Recreation) who 

"Under general direction; plans and directs landscaping and care of 
trees, shrubs, ornamental gardens and other plant life in play- 
grounds; directs and assists in grading terrain, conditioning soil 
with fertilizers, manure and topsoil, and in transplanting trees 
and shrubs; makes recommendations for improvements; supervises 
maintenance of buildings on playgrounds; requisitions and checks 
delivery of supplies; and performs related duties as required." 

For the purpose of routine maintenance of the playgrounds and centers, the 
city is divided into three districts, each under a Foreman of Buildings and 
Grounds. A similar foreman, with the aid of a crew of gardeners and laborers 
and equipped with a power mower and trucks, is responsible for all grading and 
landscaping. There is a carpenter shop presided over by a Foreman Carpenter, 
and a paint shop, with the Painter who is senior in point of service given 
responsibility for requisitioning and receiving sunplies. All other work and 
services not contracted for are supplied by the Department of Public Works on 
interdepartmental work orders. Nursery stock and seedlings come from a 
nursery in Sigmund Stern Grove, with a Nurseryman in charge. The Supervisor 
of Grounds is ??lso responsible for the transportation equipment and personnel, 
as well as for the custodian who watches over the corporation yard and ware- 
house. 

Directly in charge of the actual recreational activities other than the 

management of Camp Mather is the ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, RECREATION DEPARTMENT, 

who 

"Under general administrative direction: acts as principal assistant 
to the Superintendent in coordinating all activities in the technical 
branches of the rc-.nat; cr. deparimer.;. -«;hich include the personnel 
directly or indirectly affiliated with the activities program of the 
recreation department; is responsible for such personnel in relation 



-79- 



to the organization, promotion and conduct of all activities; 
assists in the planning, equipping and maintaining of play areas 
and facilities, and in the requisitioning of equipment and 
material used in recreation activities; organizes and conducts 
training courses including in-sorvice training programs; as 
assigned represents recreation department at public functions; 
makes recommendations for improvement in activities to the 
superintendent; makes reo^red reports; and performs related 
duties as required," 

As now organized, there are three groups of employees responsible and reporting 
directly to the Assistant Superintendent, These are: 

1, Supervisors of Athletics and of other Activities, who work directly 
with the Playground Directors on the playgrounds and in the centers 
and assist them to organize the work in thwir specialties, partic- 
ularly festivals and celebrations 

2, Employees in charge of those specialized activities units which, 
like the Children' s Museum and the Photography Center, are not the 
direct responsibility of one of the Supervisors of Activities 

3, Supervising Directors, of whom there are 10, of whom one oversees 
the work in the housing units, another looks after all the teen-age 
centers, and the other eight cover the playgrounds and centers in 
as many districts into which the city has been divided 

Park Department (Chart II) 

The Park Department is headed by an unpaid commission of five members 

appointed by the Mayor for overlapping terms of four years each,.. The commission 

appoints, without regard to civil service and to hold office at its pleasure, 

but subject to salary standardization, the following: 

Director of the Zoo 

Secretary of the Park Commission 

Superintendent of the Park Department 

The DIRECTOR OF THE ZOO > "Subject to administrative acproval: -is 
responsible for the supervision, direction and inspection of the 
work of all personnel engaged in the operation and maintenance of 
the properties known as the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, 
except landscaping and maintenance of shrubbery and lawns; and is 



-80- 












H 








z 


p 




fc. 


< 









a. 









< 


| 




> 


H 








t/1 






0. 


H 






3 


OS 


V! 








M 


e/> 


CO 




a 


a 


H 




z 

H 


Z 
3 


s 

O 


u 


> 


(_> 


U 


Q 


UJ 


CK 






K 


O 


in 




z 


>- 
< 


z 


n 


o 


J 


w 


<■ 


z 


u. 


t- 







c 




















E 








CO 
H 


>. 




.m 




J 




u J>> 


a 


H 








a 


M 
H 

CO 


3 

z 




3 
.O Z 


3 














D 


•*- 




a 41 




Z 


.c 




CD 







U 











z 




w 


z o 




y 


D w 




z 


-> J 


u 


w 


Q M 




> 


< > 


^ 


H 


H < 


■ 


OS 


CO 0. 


< 





M 






U 






z 
w < 




u. 


CO z 




-J 


K W 




o 


O H 


> 





o z 


u 




U ii 






< 


3 




s 


co 













s 


> 


Z 




W 





y 


> 




£ 


K 


C/l 




D 


H 


z 


CO 


Q 





= 






>< 


§ 


8 


>> 


H 




< 




> 




S 


3 

z 


CO 




3 




u 






£ 




u 



1 




:* 


H 


o 


o 


■- 


c 




c 


z 


J 


< 




-5 



^, 




(1 




K > « 




DuZ i- ■- - 




c 


<*- - ti 


F 


-JZ -0£ ■ 




<W tec n 

«H C — «. 


4- 





zm « a— 


u. 




w< u 





« 




s 


C k 


a. 


O 01 


z 


e c 

0) 0) 


H 






u 




b. a 




O 


(1 




S 








H 


■ 




Sgg 


E 

■ 




(4MB 


8 






Q 2 5 
cJSSS 


E 
6 




o 


u. 



responsible for the care and custody of all exhibition animals 
in the park department; and performs related duties as required." 

In the past he used to get his instructions from and report directly to the 
commission. This has been changed so that everything now goes through the 
Park Superintendent. 

The SECRETARY, PARK COMMISSION, "Subject to administrative approval 
of the park commission: is responsible for the preparation and 
maintenance of records of the commission's actions, and the custody 
thereof, and the handling of correspondence in reference thereto; 
the issuance of permits in the name of the commission; the prepara- 
tion of resolutions, specifications and contracts for approval; the 
collection and/or accounting for all park department receipts, 
deposits pnd disbursements including bonds; the preparation of tenta- 
tive budgets for approval of the park department; the preparation and 
issuance of the park department publicity; and performs related duties 
as required." 

Responsibility for the fiscal functions of the department has the effect of 
dividing responsibility for the administration of the office between the 
Superintendent and the Secretary, by placing directly under the latter the 
Cashier, as well as the accounting personnel and part of the clerical personnel. 

The SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PARK DEPARTMENT, "Subject to administrative 
approval; is responsible for the supervision, direction and inspection 
of the work of all personnel engaged in the construction, operation 
and maintenance of the park department properties and equipment 
except the zoological gardens; and performs related duties as required," 

Except for the activities of the commission secretary and operation of the zoo, 
the work of the department may be said to be in four main divisions, as 
follows: 

1. Administration and office 

2. Engineering, design and construction; and maintenance 
of structures 

3.. Maintenance of grounds 

/+. Operation - Recreation or Revenue Division 

-81- 



1. Administration and Office Division 

This division operates directly under the Park Superintendent. Except 
for the accounting function and the other activities for which the commission's 
secretary is responsible, there is the same breakdown as in the Recreation 
Department, which includes: 

a. Payroll and personnel, under immediate supervision of a 
Head Clerk 

b. Purchasing and procurement, under a Senior Clerk 

c. Miscellaneous clerical and stenographic services 

There is a warehouse on the park grounds, in custody of a storekeeper who is 
responsible to the Purchaser and whose salary is paid by the Park Department 
on interdepartmental work order. This is one of two such branch storehouses 
in the park, there being another in the Commissary unit of the Recreational 
Division, There is also a branch of the Purchaser's central automotive shops 
for repair of the department's automotive equipment, 

2, Engineering Division - Design and Construction, and Maintenance of Structures 

The Engineering division is headed by an ENGINEER (LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND 

CONSTRUCTION) whose duties are specified in detail in the statement of duties 

originally proposed when the positions in the Park Department were classified 

and came under the civil service provisions of the charter in 1941. They are 

as follows: 

"Under the general direction of the Superintendent, Park Department, 
is responsible for the planning, design, construction, alteration and 
repair of buildings, bridges, structures and other improvements, roads 
and paths, golf courses, tennis courts, and other recreational areas, 
and the preparation of estimates, specifications for, and the inspection 
of such construction, alteration and repair; is responsible for all 
surveying, mapping, and landscape architecture, and for the operation, 



-82- 



construction and maintenance of punping stations, pipe lines, and 
other structures and equipment which are a part of the water supply 
and irrigation system of the Park Department; and for the operation, 
construction and maintenance of sewage disposal plants and systems, 
and activated sludgo plants of tho Park Department; performs other 
related duties as required." 



This division is broken down into the following sections: 

a« Design, construction and inspection, directly under the head of 
tho division himself, with a small engineering and architectural 
staff, including a survey and mapping crew under a Chief of Party; 

b. Maintenance and operation of irrigation and sewage, supervised 
by the Assistant Engineer (mechanical) in addition to his duties 
in design and inspection; 

c. Maintenance of roads, paths and grading, headed by a Supervisor 
of Roads, Paths and Grading, who also acts as Coordinator of 
Equipment, and as such is responsible for scheduling the use of 
motor equipment and tho operating personnel thereof, as well as 
the repair thereof in the branch of the Purchaser's Shop No. 1 
located in the department's main yard in Golden Gate Park; 

d. Maintenance of buildings and structures, headed by a General Fore- 
man Carpenter, who directs tho force of skilled mechanics employed* 



3« Maintenance of Grounds Div ision 

Maintenance of plant life and grounds in the parks is the most important 

function in point of interest, size of personnel and expenditures. It is a 

function for which chief responsibility rests on the shoulders of the 

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF TEE PARK DEPARTMENT, who 

"Under general e dministrative direction: is responsible for the 
supervision, direction and inspection of the work of all personnel 
engaged in the operation end maintenance of the park maintenance 
division of the park department, which includes the nurseries, 
conservatory, arboretum, and botanical gardens; care and mainten- 
ance of small parks and squares, and care and maintenance of Golden 
Gate Park, and its parkway approaches, boulevards and grounds of the 
zoological gardens, Fleishhacker Playfield, Marina Park, Palace of 
Fino Arts grounds, tho Golden Gate Park Stadium and brseball fields, 
and the cleaning and maintenance of buildings and convenience stations 
therein (except as otherwise provided under the recreation and engineer- 
ing divisions); during the absence or illness of the superintendent, 
park department, discharges all the duties end responsibilities of that 
position; performs related duties as required." 

-S3- 



In addition to supervising the watchmen and the janitor of McLaren Lodge, 
this important official oversees the work of five subordinates in charge of 
as many subdivisions, as follows: 

a. Golden Gate Park and its parkway approaches, headed by a 
Supervisor of Maintenance 

b. Small parks and squares, under a Supervisor of Grounds 

c. Arboretum and botanical research, directed by a Supervisor 
of Arboretum and Botanical Research who is also the depart- 
ment's entomologist 

d. Nurseries (plant propagation for use), stipcrvised by a Chief 
Nurseryman, who, though a Foreman Gardener, is also responsible 
for the maintenance of Balboa Park, where are located tho 
nurseries in which are raised vegetables used as food for the 
zoo animals and in the park restaurants 

e. Conservatory (plant propagation for display), supervised by a 
Chief Nurseryman 

The first of these subdivisions is the largest and most important. 

In fact, it is probably the largest subdivision v.dthin the department, rath 

general maintenance duties on a city-wide scale, the scope of which is 

indicated only in part in the statement of the duties of its chief, the 

SUPERVISOR OF MAINTENANCE: 

"Under direction: is responsible for tho maintenance and improve- 
ment of the grounds of Golden Gate Park, its parkway approaches and 
boulevards, and grounds of the zoological gardens, Fleishhacker 
playfield, Marina park, the Palace of Fine Arts, and for land- 
scaping such areas and for care of flowers, trees, shrubs and other 
plant life therein, and for cleaning and maintenance of buildings 
and convenience stations located therein, except as otherwise 
assigned to the recreation and engineering divisions; requisitions 
materials and supplies; and performs related duties as required." 

For purposes of maintenance Golden Gate Park is divided into the Panhandle and 
nine sections. One of these sections is comprised of the arboretum and 
botanical gardens, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the 



-84- 



Supervisor of Arboretum. The Supervisor of Maintenance is responsible for the 
remaining sections, each of which has a Foreman Gardener in direct charge, 
except for a Subforeman in the Panhandle. 

In addition to the foregoing, a Foreman Gardener, also responsible to 
the Supervisor of Maintenance, is in charge of crews of gardeners at each of 
the following: 

Fleishhackcr Zoo, PI ay fie Id and Pool 

Palace of Fine Arts, Marina Park and Yacht Harbor 

McLaren Park 

Great Highway and Esplanade 

Park-Presidio Boulevard; including Mountain Lake Park and 
the Richmond Police Station 

Sunsot Parkway and other boulevards, interdepartmental 
(from gas tax funds) 

The Supervisor of Maintenance also schedules the vv-ork of the mower and tree- 
topping crews, as well as the weed control and insecticide details, and some 
other individual employees charged to the general division of the department. 
Of the 17 Foreman Gardeners in the department, 16 report to him besides the 
subforeman in the Panhandle. 

The maintenance of the numerous small parks and squares scattered 
throughout the city, with the exception of Balboa Perk and the Marina, is 
directed by a SUPERVISOR OF GROUNDS (Park). This is the title since 1944, to 
which it was changed from General Foreman, Small Parks and Squares. The written 
scope of duties is identical with that of the employee with a similar title in 
the Recreation Department, whose former title was Superintendent of Grounds, 
(There is a Supervisor of Grounds in the Education Department also.) 



In practice there is a difference between the two positions in the Park 
and Recreation Departments, because the Supervisor of Grounds in the Park 
Department does not have the responsibility of overseeing the repairs to 
buildings snd structures, nor for such general activities as the power moxving 
crew, tree topping, etc. As indicated above, the former is the responsibility 
of the engineering division and the latter of the Superintendent of .Maintenance. 
Then, too, the Supervisor of the Recreation Department operates through district 
foremen, whereas the Supervisor of Grounds in the Park Department operates 
through subforemen or working foremen who may or may not supervise gardeners 
and/or janitors on the particular squares for which they are responsible or on 
others nearby. 

Their training was similar. The present Supervisor of Grounds of the 
Recreation Department received his training in the Park Department. In one 
respect at least their jobs are very similar indeed. Both must cover the 
entire city in order to supervise all the properties for which they are now 
responsible. This requires them to spend most of their time in automobiles, 
traveling from one location to the other. Their paths frequently cross, 
because of the juxtaposition of park and recreation properties. In a consoli- 
dated department, this duplication of effort would be eliminated. 

4. Operation - Recreation or Revenue Division (Chart III) 

At the head of the Revenue Division of the Park Department is a DIRECTOR 
OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. (It may be interesting to note that the present 
incumbent of this position, who has been in the department since 1925, was 
secretary of the Playground Commission very early in its history.) His duties 
are as follows: 







.* 











H 


o 




b. 


U 




< 
U 


• 












o 






o 


■n 




N 


a 




"Under general administrative direction: supervises the operation 
of all park department recreational and athletic activities, and 
all revenue producing units such as football stadia and fields, 
golf courses, polo fields, baseball fields, tennis courts, volley 
ball courts, bowling greens, handball courts, swimming pools, 
playgrounds, restaurant and refreshment stands, and activities at 
Yacht Harbor, Aquatic Park Center, Municipal Pier and Beach, Coit 
Tower, and miscellaneous activities such as the flycasting pool, 
model yacht center, archery field, sightseeing tours and district 
tennis, and is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of all 
buildings and grounds operated in connection therewith, except 
Golden Gate Stadium and baseball fields ; supervises the requisition 
and issuing of supplies and equipment used in these activities and 
the proper accounting therefor; is responsible for moneys received 
from the operation of these activities and makes financial reoorts 
thereon; advises in the preparation of plans for construction and 
remodeling of recreational units; and performs related duties as 
required. " 



For purposes of supervision, these facilities may roughly be divided 
into five groups: 

a. Those supervised directly by the Director of Recreational Activities: 

Coit Tower, with the Counter Attendant in charge 
Yacht Harbor, under the Harbormaster 
Fleishhacker Pool, with the Head Lifeguard in charge 
Floishhacker Bathhouse, where the General Clerk is in charge 
during the season when he is employed 

b. Those revenue facilities in which he is assisted by one of the two 
Assistant Directors of Recreational Activities: 

Operation of Xezar Stadium .and Pavilion 

Supervision of starters on the golf courses 

Timekeeping of various employees, including the staff at the pool 
when it is not in operation, the janitor at the polo field and 
at the flycasting pool (this employee is actually under the 
supervision of the Supervisor of Maintenance), and the watchman 
assigned to guard the Cashier 

c. Facilities of minor importance from the standpoint of revenues, as 
playgrounds (ether than those for which the Supervisor of Restaurants 
and Playgrounds is responsible) and tennis courts, under a second 
Assistant Director of Recreational Activities, who is responsible 
for the part time playground directors assigned to the "Big Rer;" 

end four small parks 



-87- 



d. Goli' courses, responsibility for the maintenance of which is 
that of the Supervisor of Golf Courses, who also supervises 
maintenance of the bowling greens in Golden Gate Park 

e« Commissary units - restaurants and playfields, headed by a 
Supervisor of Restaurants and Playgrounds 

In the language of the duties statement the SUPERVISOR OF RESTAURANTS 

AND PLAYGROUNDS 

"Under general direction: supervises <-?nd is responsible for the 
operation and maintenance of the Fleishhacker Playfield and 
Children's Playground, and the supervision, operation and main- 
tenance of restaurants and refreshment stands operated either 
directly by the park department or as concessions; is responsible 
for moneys received from these activities and makes accounting 
therefor; supervises the requisitioning and issuing of supplies 
and for foodstuffs offered for sale, and for the proper account- 
ing for supplies, equipment and food used in these activities 
and the inventory thereof; and performs related duties as required." 

Flcishhacker Playfield and the Children' s Quarters are operated as units 
covering both the recreational and the refectory features, each under a 
Foreman of Recreational Activities, Another such foreman acts as relief and 
is responsible for the Kezar Stadium refreshment concession. In each of the 
golf restaurants the cook is in charge; as, likewise in the Zoo Cafe; whereas 
one of the counter attendants is responsible for running the Oriental Tea 
Garden. 

Similarities of Park and Recreation Departments 

Comparison of the two organizations discloses numerous differences 
between them. These differences, however, are not basic. They are due 
chiefly to the disparity in the number, nature and size of the physical plants 
controlled and requiring maintenance by the departments themselves. Thus, the 
fact that the Recreation Department operates on so many school properties for 
the maintenance of which it has no responsibility, reduces its maintenance 



problems and affects the organization required for that purpose. Likewise, as 
has already been stated above, there is greater emphasis on maintenance in the 
Park Department, because it is a form of operation - an end in itself. Besides 
that, the Park operates a large number of revenue -producing facilities, whereas 
the only such facility of any consequence operated by the Recreation Department 
is Camp Mather. 

Of greater interest is the striking parallelism to be found in the two 
departments - a parallelism in objectives, organization, facilities operated, 
and types of employee services and equipment required. In each will be found: 

A commission of five appointed laymen 

Secretary to the commission, who in the case of the parks 

is responsible for some administrative functions 
Superintendent as chief executive in charge of the department 

and responsible for its direction and operations 
Administrative functions - Accounting, personnel, purchasing 

and requisition, clerical and miscellaneous 
Engineering, design and inspection of construction and 

repairs 
Maintenance of grounds and structures 
Operation of recreational facilities 
Operatinn of restaurants in the one and a camp with similar 

operating problems in the other 

The comparison goes much deeper than is apparent on the surface even 
from the similarity of organization. Although both departments operate special 
facilities that appeal to visitors as well as to the residents of the entire 
city, both are especially organized to bring their services directly to the 
people in the various neighborhoods. Hence both operate widely scattered and 
decentralized facilities throughout the four corners of the city. This requires 
constant travel on the part of the supervisory personnel and, to a considerable 
extent, some of the maintenance and operating personnel also. 



-89- 



The result is a parallelism that becomes more evident the more closely 
bhe facilities and activities aro scrutinized. Some of them are not merely 
similar in nature and nffected by the same problems of maintenance; frequently 
they lie alongsido each other or in close proximity. Because, however* they 
ire operated by rival departments* employees spending only part of a day or 
rook on the maintenance of a playground or square frequently must travel 
;onsidcrable distances to others under the same jurisdiction. 

Besides that, many of the maintenance and operating problems are 
Identical, requiring the same typos of personnel chosen from tho same cisil service 
Lists, vho are called upon to perform similar duties or to operate similar 
equipment. There is unquestionably a duplication of some major equipment not 
lecessarily in use at all times. Each department has a carpenter shop with 
squipment to which both add from time to time as they manage to secure the 
lecessary appropriations. However, in other respects the Park Department's 
["orce of building maintenance workers is more complete than is that of the 
Recreation Department, which must depend upon the Department of Public Yvorks 
["or skilled craftsmen other than carpenters or painters for work not contracted 
?or. The trucks of the two departments cross each others' paths as they make 
their rounds to collect rubbish and cuttings for disposal; and the Recreation 
Department finds it necessary to contract with the scavengers' associations 
!"or garbage, although the Park Department disposes of its own large accumulations 
md could undoubtedly add that of its sister agency at far less additional cost 
:han present contract requirements* 

There ore other required services which the P t ecreation Department lacks 
>ut which aro found to some degree at least in the Park Department. Thus, 
;roe-topping problem in Gigmund Stem Grove which has evoked complaints frc 

-90- 



a 
*om 



aeighboring residents has led to a request for an appropriation to permit tho 
employment of a crew to attack tho problem. The Park Department already has 
such a detail which it wishes to enlarge and strengthen. It is a matter of 
record that the services of this crew was enlisted by the Recreation Department 
in 1937 on work order. As another example may be taken the engineering forco 
:jf the Recreation Department. It consists of a Senior Draftsman with a single 
Full-time assistant and occasional temporary help. The department would 
benefit from the services of a more rounded staff such as the Park Department 
ias» 

Duplicate crews require duplicate equipment, which may, nevertheless* 
be inadequate in some respects. The fact of the matter is that, although the 
bwo departments loom large, many of the service units within them are small, 
.inbalrnccd, incomplete* Both would benefit from a coordination of their forces. 
It would provide them with more completely equipped shops, better and more 
Fully rounded crews, and less idle time for expensive equipment or highly paid 
nen because it would provide reserve equipment and thereby obviate any need for 
keeping men idle while essential equipment is undergoing repairs, or for the 
payment of double time for such repairs outside the normal work week* 

The advantages of consolidating at least some aspects of the v/ork of 
bhe two departments have been apparent for a long time. In "the minutes of the 
Playground Commission can be found a record of the fact that at its meeting 
aeld on April 15, 1931, Homer D. Pack, its then Supervisor of Playground 
Construction and Maintenance (retired for disability in 1944), reported that he 
nad called on Park Commissioner John McLaren regarding the possibility of having 
bhe Park Department handle the landscaping for the Playground Department. Hcw- 
;ver, the Commission decided to continue doing this independently. 

-91- 



■What was suggested for landscaping cm be suggested for maintenance 
generally, for which tho Parle Department is better equipped on the whole. Thus, 
in a report on a survey of tho government of tho City and County of Son Francisco 
nade in 1916 by the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, it was recommended 
bhat the playgrounds in Golden Gate Park and Mission Park be transferred to the 
Playground Commission for supervision. The report stressed the fact that it 
was not necessary that the maintenance of these playgrounds be transferred also, 
Dut that it was desirable that the control over the operation of tho playgrounds 
oc transferred to an organization which was equipped in executive personnel for 
carrying on that kind of work. "There should be .just as close a working 
relation between the park and playground commission as exists between the board 
3f education and the playground commission." (pages 669-70) 



-92- 



Chapter 8 

PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED 

The need for cooperation and coordination of the efforts of all 
interested in providing and extending recreational facilities has long been 
recognized. Practically every important work on the subject by recognized 
authorities has devoted numerous pages of discussion to the subject, and to 
the need for avoiding the waste of taxpayers' funds inherent in duplication. 

In his book on the "Organization and Administration of Playgrounds, " 
published almost twenty years ago, Professor Jay B. Nash stated (page 153) 
that cities in which three distinct departments are conducting playground and 
recreation activities, parks, playgrounds and schools, represented the muni- 
cipal organization at its worst, unless some type of cooperation could be 
effected. For with such organization it was impossible to avoid duplication 
and the inevitable waste of the taxpayers' money. 

In a report of the Committee on Play and Recreation of the National 
Municipal League published in 1931 entitled "Standards of Play and Recreation," 
which Professor Nash prepared as chairman of the committee, he quoted from 
Anderson's "American City Government" (pages 82-83) as follows: 

"TAihere there are many authorities there is bound to be some unnecessary 
duplication of" work, as well as neglect of some functions. Thus in 
one city there are two sets of playgrounds, yet there is no system 
of playgrounds, because of failure of the two boards to act together. 
There is another case where there are two sets of municipal baths, 
with two separate supervising authorities, yet there is no system 
of public baths. Such overlappings frequently lead to bitter con- 
troversies between the separate authorities, and frequently result 



-93- 



' 



■ • ■ • 



■ i 

■■■ ■ - 

■ 



in lawsuits between them, all in the name of the public and at the 
publio expense. On the other hand, new functions sometimes fall 
between two stools, since no one of the existing authoritios cares 
to spend money on it." 

In this report there is a chart showing the city providing parks and play- 
grounds and the sohools providing playgrounds, community centers and physical 
education, with a caption reading: 

"Overlapping areas, overlapping authorities, confusion of duties, 
confusion and overlapping of responsibilities, vhich lead to 
expensive administration and limit results." 

In his book, under the head of "Duplication is Wasteful," Professor 

Nash stated (page 133): 

"It is extremely wasteful of money and effort to have two or more 
arms of a city government conducting the same type of activities. 
Such circumstances involve duplicate offices, duplicate administra- 
tive officials, duplicate inspectors, and supervisors. The most 
wasteful element, however, is the confusion which is caused in the 
minds of the people relative to who is responsible for certain 
types of organization. Certain rules exist on the tennis court on 
this corner, across the block is another tennis court with still 
other rules. When people find that there is no central office from 
which they can get definite information relative to all types of 
activities, they become greatly discouraged and cease to seek for 
information." 

Similar assertions that lack of uniformity in methods of organising local 
recreation services has resulted in confusion, conflicts over jurisdiction, 
overlapping programs and duplication of areas and facilities can be found in 
"Municipal Recreation Administration," published by the International City 
Managers Association. An example is cited of a city with a population in 
excess of 100,000 where three departments maintain major recreation facilities 
but do not have a single full-time recreation worker between them. 



-94- 



. 



■ 



' 






• 






. 






Basic Administrative Principles 

Accordingly, it may be well to set down some basic principles. In 

the report on "Standards of Play and Recreation Administration" cited above, 

Professor Nash developed a scries of nine 6uch principles. Of these the first 

five and the seventh are pertinent to this discussion and are hence reproduced. 

They are as follows: 

n l. Two governmental agencies should not attempt to organize the 
same activities for the same people. This is good law and 
good sense. Anything else would involve confusion and 
irresponsibility. 

2. If the playground and recreation needs of children and adults 
are to be administered efficiently, there should be coordina- 
tion of all local governmental and semi-private agencies 
concerned. This is equally obvious. There are many examples 
of successful eooperation of this sort. 

3. Additional open areas - parks, playgrounds, school yards, 
plazas, etc. - should be provided in accordance with a 
master city plan. 

4. The legislative body of the municipality should have power 

to centralize in one administrative department all recreation 
activities of a similar type which are under municipal control. 
The school should have assigned to it specific functions which 
will not overlap those of any other local governmental agency. 

5. With the rising cost of local government, emphasis must be 
directed, first toward securing additional returns and service 
from a better integration of present agencies and a more 
efficient use of present facilities, and later to an extension 
of facilities to meet growing needs. 

7, The state legislature should authorize cooperative undertakings 
between various departments of a municipal corporation, or if 
possible a municipal corporation and a board of education." 

The same principles have been stated by other workers in the field; 
but it is doubtful if they have been stated better or more tersely. It may 
nevertheless be worth while to consider some statements of general principles 
from a memorandum of the National Recreation Association attached, to a letter 



-95- 



r ^r 



* 



4 



addressed to Ernest 0. Meyer, Confidential Secretary to Mayor Lapham, on 

October 24, 1946, from Charles E. Reed, Field Manager of the Association, 

as follows: 

"All city owned property should be mado available for the use of 
the department responsible for conducting recreation. 

"Some organized group should give continuous and collective thought 
to the leisure time problems of the city and the means to meet 
these problems. Both park and school authorities should bo repre- 
sented, because the properties they control are essential to a 
successful program. 

"In general, vital, interested, progressive service of the public 
function - Community Recreation - should be the primary considera- 
tion, rather than control of property or administrative convenience. 
These latter are external and can be sensibly arranged; the former 
is essential to successful accomplishment of the purpose. The 
important thing in the administration of recreation work is not so 
much the exact form of administration - in the last analysis local 
conditions must determine -which is the best group to administer the 
system - but the degree of cooperation which the governing group and 
the superintendent of recreation can secure from all city departments 
having facilities which should be utilized. It should be borne in 
mind that under any form of administrative control yet devised, 
problems based on the joint use and control of facilities are bound 
to arise. Even within a department, such as the school board, for 
example, differences arising out of the evening use of buildings 
must be adjusted between the day time and evening workers. Proper 
cooperation between the different departments is essential to 
success whatever the nature of the board in charge, and with 
cooperation success is practically assured." 

Recreation Proponents' Viewpoints 



Proponents of separate Recreation department admit freely that there 
are "naturally mutual points of interest" and "seme generally related 
functions" between park and recreation departments, which make for numerous 
advantages in a combined or coordinated department rather than in a separate, 
independently staffed recreation set-up. Their discussion of the advantages 
and disadvantages of recreation administration by the three possible depart- 
ments concerned runs somewhat as follows : 



-96- 



, " 



1. They realize that the schools, with facilities increasingly better 
planned for effective recreational and community as well as educational usage, 
are geographically distributed in accordance with the requirements for 
distribution of recreational facilities - so much so that most of them advocate 
the provision of such facilities jointly with or adjoining the schools (and 
this program has been adopted and is proceeding on an ever growing scale in 
San Francisco). The character-building functions of play have been recognized 
by educational authorities, who already have charge of most children for a 
goodly part of the day during their most formative years. Recreational 
activity flows naturally from the physical education program, which is 
rapidly becoming play-motivated, in addition to which many of the craft and 
other elements of the recreational program are already part of the educational 
curriculum. With all this is the existence of a large corps of trained, 
experienced and permanent personnel having the necessary character and ideals. 

Offsetting these advantages are cited such factors as the inadequacy 
of school budgets in many communities and the desire for the largest measure 
of reimbursement in the form of grants-in-aid, which result in the attention 
of educational authorities being limited to the particular segments of the 
population for whom they are legally responsible during the periods for which 
their responsibility is fixed by law and within the limits of the school 
plant. The operation of schools under state laws, frequently along district 
lines which do not necessarily coincide with municipal boundaries, also act as 
a limiting factor. The disciplinary pedagogical attitude carried over from the 
classroom is cited as a phychological handicap in dealing with others than 
children of school age. Outstanding is the fear that recreational activities 
will be the first to suffer as least essential when budget stringency develops. 



-97- 



2. They recognize the fact that recreation is the basic purpose for 
which the parks exist, and that the numerous park properties scattered through- 
out the municipality already contain many of the facilities essential to the 
development of a program of organized recreation; that park departments are 
organized and administered so as to provide and service such facilities while 
catering to the noeds of large numbers of people; and that it is impossible to 
divorce recreational activities entirely from the construction and maintenance 
operations. 

They point, however, to the primary interest of park administrators in 
engineering and landscaping, along with the operation of such facilities as 
zoos, refectories and other revenue -producing or space -consuming activities 
which involve similar problems. The emphasis is thus on the physical 
properties to be constructed and maintained rather than the human beings to 
whose service these properties are devoted. The recreational program is 
criticized as consisting primarily of physical activities, with a relative 
lack of indoor facilities required for cultural and community interests. The 
organized program requiring training is not only thin, but is deemed non- 
essential, hence is the first to suffer in periods of financial stress. 

•3. They do not deny that it is highly inadvisable to create depart- 
ments having jurisdiction and control over little or no property, but operating 
on properties controlled by other departments; nor do they deny that, if such 
separate departments do have exclusive control and jurisdiction over property, 
it results in adding* to the complexity of the governmental machinery, 'in 
duplication and in overlapping, hence in additional expense. 



-98- 



They insist, however, that this docs not necessarily mean inefficiency; 
and that recreation is of such importance that separate administration is 
desirable. They feel this function is of such importance thrt it cannot be 
relegated to other departments already so over-loaded with responsibilities 
that this one must of necessity become subsidiary to their main interests. 
In their belief, only a separate body definitely responsible for the single 
function of recreation can be strong enough to secure the attention the 
subject merits in their eyes, and rive to it the emphasis it requires to 
achieve their purpose of building a program sufficiently strong to provide 
for the leisure-time needs of all and of providing the trained leadership 
essential for such overall program. Only thus do they expect to furnish the 
intensified drive necessary to secure publicity and public support, hence 
adequate financing for their specialized programs and for ultimate development. 

T/Bhat it boils lown to, then, is fear of subordination to park mainten- 
ance and landscaping, with possible inadequate financing of the organized 
recreation program as a consequence. Despite admission that a consolidated 
department would be ideal from the standpoint of economy and efficiency, and 
that it would provide for enlargement of the overall program by bringing into 
the supervised recreation system parks and other areas not now so usod, 
separate administration with all its attendant evils must be tolerated because 
of such fear. 

Fears Unjustified in San F ranoisco 

Whatever reasons there may have been for such fears in the past, when 
public recreation was a now activity still unaccepted as a proper governmental 
function, or may be now in many cities where it is still comparatively new and 



-99- 



underfinanced in the cyos of its proponents, these fears should have dis- 
appeared long before this. There is no excuse for them in San Francisco. 
From the facts and figures sot forth in considerable detail above, it must 
be obvious that recreation has long been recognized as a desirable and proper 
municipal function. It has been so well regarded and so amply financed that 
San Francisco is far out in the front ranks of cities from the standpoint of 
expenditures for recreation. 

TOiat is true of San Francisco is likewise true of many other large 
cities. Evidence relative to the expansion of recreation programs even where 
they are not separately administered is profuse in the annual reports and 
other literature exchanged between cities. Reference is again made to 
Table 20, toward the end of Chapter 6 of this report, which shows comparative 
per capita expenditures of the large cities for recreation. The data in this 
tabulation certainly does not bear out the theory that recreation fares better 
if it is separately administered. 

On the basis of the principles previously set forth. Professor Nash 
recommended the consolidation of playground and park functions into one 
department. That was in 1928. Such a step has long been overdue in San 
Francisco. Instead the two departments have been permitted to drift farther 
apart. There is less cooperation today than at the start of the playground 
program, despite the fact that they have more features in common than was 
true when that recommendation was made. 

Trend to Consolidation 

Most early developments of playgrounds were as bureaus in park dapa.ru- 
ments. This was true in Boston, the first city to make provision for 

-100- 



playgrounds. A new board was set up combining former boards, and it was given 
jurisdiction over all parks, public grounds, convenience stations, baths, 
beaches, playgrounds, gymnasia and all other forms of public recreation, such 
as music, parades and celebrations. It was likewise true and is still true 
of many other cities, especially the larger ones, like New York, where 
playgrounds and other recreational facilities, except those -which may be 
functioning in the schools, are operated by bureaus or other divisions in 
the park department. 

Meanwhile there grew up the concept of organized recreation, with the 
use of indoor facilities as well as such cultural and social forms as arts 
and crafts, musical, dramatic, artistic, and group work in addition to the 
physical forms represented by athletics in its various aspects. The growth 
of these forms was mainly in congested areas of large cities, undertaken by 
private philanthropy for specific economically submerged, racial or other 
special groups. However, the need for making the same forms of recreation 
available for others besides these groups developed and resulted in the 
organization of such activities by the municipalities. 

In many cases these recreational activities were organized on park 
and other municipal properties, end frequently on school properties as well,, 
with the idea of keeping the children off streets which were becoming 
increasingly congested and dangerous. Just AS frequently the schools 
organized such activities themselves; and as the* functions of school boards 
widened, they went further and began to permit the use of school buildings 
as social and civic centers at night. In many -instances independent 
development of organized rocr cation led to clashes with the older pnrk 
interests, because of the differences in philosophy "md emphasis. 



-101- 



• 



■wit ~ ; . •■. .. 



...Mi . ■: 



Despite these differences, however, there has come a realization that 
they have much in common. Their purposes are similar. "Gradually in 
response to popular demand landscaped areas yielded to recreation and the 
parks tended to become playgrounds. On the other hand the desirability of 
improving the attractiveness of playgrounds was gradually realized by the 
playground authorities and playgrounds tended to become parklike. As the tro 
functions tended to merge, the logic of merging the departments became 
incontrovertible." Thus does Mr. Hjelte describe the consolidation in 
Berkeley in 1926. ("Administration of Public Recreation," page 55) Ho 
states that "as parks are more liberally interpreted as recreation places 
and as municipal park authorities depart from the traditional view that the 
function of a park department is only to preserve and enhance the beauty of 
the natural landscape, the two branches of municipal service will tend to be 
merged." (page 5C) 

Most books on the administration and organization of public recreation 
reproduce statistics on the forms of administration of community recreation 
in the municipalities of the country. These are taken from analyses presented 
in the yearbooks of the National Recreation Association. Mr. Hjelte presents 
them comparatively as indicative of the extent to which cities are organised 
for recreation and the agency to which responsibility for this function has 
been assigned. He interprets them as indicative of no decided trend toward 
centralizing administration in any particular type of agency, although he 
notes with interest the tendency to link park and recreation functions in a 
single agency. 

Other books, however, citing the same statistics, point to therf a", 
indicating more rapid growth of separate recreation departments than any 



-102- 



other type. Further, they claim that this more rapid growth is particularly 
marked if only those jurisdictions be considered where full-time, year-round 
playground leadership has been developed. 

Careful analysis of the 6ame material, however, discloses that the 
greatest percentage growth of all has actually been in combined park-recrea- 
tion departments. This is particularly true if there be included such con- 
solidations within more inclusive departmental organizations, whether that be 
public works, welfare, or oven such a unit as finance, which situation can be 
found in Portland, a commission governed city. Such consolidated departments 
were not tabulated separately in 1926; but by 1930 there were 31, and the 
number increased to 41 in 1939. The pace seems to have grown more rapid 
since, for the tabulations revealed a total of 67 in 1944. However, 
although tho total number of municipalities represented in that analysis was 
the largest ever tabulated, no returns had been received from at least ten 
municipalities with department titles indicative cf r onnolidated services 
which had been included in the 1942 list. Besid ; tha"Cj at least two citios t 
El Paso and LouisvMlc,. were indicated as having :. a dependent recreation 
administration, whereas inf c rmr.tioD received directly showed consclidatior. 
with parks as long a,z;o as 1937 in tho foimer and in 194D in the latter. Is 
is possible there wore o-hor errc.-s, likewise, inasmuch as the e::: stcr.ee o£ 
a separate recreation commission .« which rcight seem indicative of indepei.dsn.'fc 
admin is tratl on^ mi^h': sonoeitably not preclude operation as a unit in a 
larger set-up. It must be remembered, likewise, that in a large number of 
independent recreation departments there is no problem of physical maintenance 
because they operate entirely on properties controlled and maintained by 
other municipal departments. 



-103- 



The facts available point to an ever growing movement toward 
consolidations of independent recreation services with parks, and in some 
instances with schools. Newark, H.'J. , Milwaukee, Wis., Albany, N.Y., and 
Canton, Ohio, are examples of the latter. Fairly recent examples of the 
former include El Paso, Detroit, Louisville, Baltimore (approved by the 
voters in November 1946), Kansas City, Shroveport, La., and in this state, 
Los Angeles County as well as the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego. The 
two latter were approved at the polls in Harch and April of 1947. Other 
cities in the state of California where the two services are administered 
jointly include Berkeley, Burbank, Glendale, Hermosa Beach, National City, 
San Bruno, San Mateo, South Gate and Visalia. Consolidation is now being 
considered in Sacramento. 

Based on the data in the yearbooks of the National Recreation 
Association, supplemented by a study of available charters and information 
received directly, a list of 78 cities, three counties and one township has 
been compiled where the services are administered by departments bearing both 
activities in the title. (See Appendix VII) 

Furthermore, an entirely different picture from that depicted above 
is secured if only the largest cities, those with populations of at least 
50,000, be considered. In such an analysis, it is apparent that the larger 
the city, the greater the likelihood either that the two services are con- 
solidated or that recreation is merely a unit division of the park department 
or else that both are divisions of an even more comprehensive departmental 
organization. The extent to which the administration of recreation is 
combined in some degree with that of the parks, or is independent thereof , 
is shown in Table 21. (See Appendix VIII for cities and f crm of adnini strati on.) 



■104- 



EH fr; 

M O 

M W 

O tS3 

«i H 

ft< DO 



!3 3 
«sj to 

CM O O 
EH W ' 



g 



-I 

w O 



I 



o 

co O 
£ ° 



& 



© 3 j! 
a a, o 



% 


P TJ 




at w 


-p 


© p ,« 




P a) J-. 


03 


<fl -H 0j 


gb 


CH ft 


© 


•H -H 


Q 


T) <U ,C 




h <H P 


.£ 


O OJ -H 


P 


-2 ^ 


f 


3 >-. 
to 



•0 




© 


m 


•p 


M 




Si 


•H 


Oh 


r-l 




O 


x; 


CS 


p 


d 




* 








u 

i-H © 
OS & 

■E 6 

o 3 

En C 



» I 1 10 w <*o 



I HHN 



rH CM C- <HI 



CM CM <* 00 



8 



o 
o o 
000 
o •> o 

oO O 

00* 
000 
o »o 



XOO 
POO 

o o 

^ o o 
O o m 

gin n 



o 
o 
o 

o o 
000 

1 r-l O O 

»o 

^ O * 

© o m 

> rH l> 



I in 



s, 



tO OJ CM 

<)l w «? 



fc. 



o^ 



O vH t- CM 



» 



fc, 



o 

O O 

OOOO 
o •• o o 

% O O O 
O o » » 
OOOO 

o * m 

»H ION 



"^ 



OOOO 



O 
O 
O 

O O 

OOO 

i~( O o 

Jl O •> 

(SOW 



000 

O U5 o 

tf)NH 



a! O O 
POO 

" O o 






CM 



\5? 



o 



^ 

^ 



d 



10 +5 




•H 




a 









P 5 




jf«fc 




>> 




£h ,-1 




a p 




•H O 




© 




,Q -3 




-a 




X) 




© XI 




P © 




a > 




© -rl 




S © 




© O 




rH © 




O^ U 




O. 




3 d 




w 




•H 




•> P 




d cj 




Jig 




+> 




43^ 




O -rl 




O 




ca (0 




03 OS 




<J 




rH 




fl rH 




O © 




•H £ 




-P 




rt eg 

© C3 


•0 




h 


p 


U « 





© w 





en 4» 


£ 


J-l 


Cw 


rH O 


© 


0! a, 




s © 


C 


^ 


O 


•H 


© 


P rH 


& 


rt d 




S g 




© § 


,c 3 


X 


p 




T3 


a 


3 


a 






•ri 


CO (0 


P 


^ U 


cJ 


© 


T3 


40 


■r-l 


U cl 


rH 


O 


© O 


C! 


>< 


O 


© 


'J 


■tf rH 


-P 


C73 (S 


C 


rH rH 


O 


•/H 





X) 03 





S 5 


u 




© 


CM S 


u 


^M O 





oS U 


£ 


<-< tH 


P 



-105- 



This tabulation shows that in 4 of the 14 largest cities in the United 
States, these vrLth 1940 populations exceeding half a million, the park and 
recreation services are combined in a single departmont. In six others the 
recreation function is subordinate to or othervn.se affiliated with parks* 
In one other, Milwaukee, recreation is vholly under educational control. 
This leaves only three cities, including San Francisco, in which recreation 
is administered separately. Considering the 37 cities over 250,000 popula- 
tion, eight have consolidated their services and in seventeen more they are 
otherwise related. Thus 25 of the 37, or 67.5 percent of the total number 
have closely related services. In two others they are under eduoational 
control. Hence recreation is separately administered in only ten. It is not 
until we get to cities under 250,000 that a substantial proportion show 
separate administration of the recreation function. 

Taking the 92 cities with populations over 100,000, 16 have merged 
services and 35 more related, making a total of 51 or 55^4 percent of the 
total either consolidated or otherwise closely allied to parks, and four 
more under education. Only 34, or 37 percent seem clearly to have separate 
recreational administrations. 

In the cities from 75,000 to 100,000 population more than a fifth 
have consolidated their park and recreation services; and enough more have 
closely related services to make the situation in this regard practically 
the same as in all the larger cities. It is not until the smallest cities 
are reached, those with populations from 50,000 to 75,000 that the independ- 
ently administered recreation services are in the majority. 



-106- 



|H H M 

pa _3 m 

H CO 

Q ^ ^ 

H Cx, CQ 



CC EH CO 
-d. O 

a w _ 

OKO 
CM I-H O ^f 

CO B W 0> 

■aj & ■-« 

CQ Ph S3 W 

<!OH(S 



Cn E-< 
O CO P 

53 S -3 

O M 
M ^ S 

gas 

(Q at 

H t40 

mgfe 

t-H E-i O 

-5 en 
cm w 

w M 
O 6-< 



u 

co co 
-p X 
a -p 

> o 



o § 
•p -p 

CO 
T) !>> 

CD to 

■8h 

d O 
4J O 
■P. X 



co K H 

"C ^ O 

£ b 2 

o as rC 

Aft" 

o w 

•d V) 

fi O )h 



3 |co 



P> r d 



•rl -rl 
t) Cm 

O d 

■§* 

co o 



T3 




co 


03 


-p 


^1 


d 


h 


T3 


a 


•H. 


c 


H 




O 


X. 


ID 


p 


C 

o 


■g 


o 





Fh 



O co to 

in h 'f 
co co in 



fc- 


0) 


CO 


(C 


CM r-4 


co 


cm 


w 


CO 


CD CD 


m 


«^4 


N 


C\J 


H 



>J< CO CO O tO CD O 

CO CO C- O 

CO t> c- << 

•t at •» at 

H t- w m 

CO 01 CD CO 

cd cm co -# 

H rl N to 



N O Hffl 

co CD CO "C 1 

w co tn < ( 

at at at at 

CD CD H CO 

t— co O co 

cd in o o 

to ^ in co 



to cm to O 
co t~- cd cm 



to 



CO 



CO CM CO 

rH CM rH 

tO CO CM 

C- rH l-l 
CM 



o <y> 

CD CM rH 

CO <• CO 

at at » 

CO O LO 



Hrl<<C0 

in cn CM CM CD CM CO 

co co c— m 



O CM CO CM 



cn 


to 


CO 


CD 


«* 


o 


H 


CM 


«* 


CO 


CM 


B» 


CO 


*^ 


c- 


i-H 


LO 


CM 


CO 


t> 


CM 








•» 








L> 


in 


CO 


Q 


O) 


rH 


H 


CM 


f- 


o 




H 


O 


CO 


H 


CO 


CM 


CM 


m 


to 


F^ 



co H H H 



(O CO \i O CO H CO 

co co co m 

CO O O O O CD CO 



O W MO 
r-l LO CM CD 
CD ^ CO C~ 

at » % at 

LO CO C- t- 



CO O) CD 
CO CO CO 
CD CO CO 



o 

° ° ^ 
o o o 

o *o 

at O O 

o c « 
o o o 
o » o 

at rH CO 



o 

o 
o 

o « 
o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 



-p -p -p 



X\ O 

-P o 

o 



POO 

O O LO 

a in cm 



o o 

to -p -P 

° ^ ~ 

O cS o o 

O -P o o 

at O O O 

° E -1 ~ ,-? 

o mo 

rH C- CO 



H LOrH 
« • • 

CD LO CO 



cd i-i in 

OHW 



CO CD «c* 

• • «J 
CO CM << 



t^TiH co rH cd in o 

cm o O ^"(OO; co 

HNtO <-!b0 CM LO 



V' r -' 



CD CO CD CO 



txO 



"fe>. 



ijto 



CO <^ t> CM CM CO CO 

to ^h ^i co in « tH 



V- 



tVO tO CD 
• * * * 

(Jj CO C£) I" 



& 



O o o 



o o 
O o o 
o »o 
»o o 
o o » 
o o o 

O «Q 

at rH CO 



o o o 
o o o 

H r-t M 



o 
o 

O O o 
o o o 

•trH 

o 



^ P o 



_ o 

o o 
•t o 



g 4 ^ 

x o o 

-POO 

o o 

CO «t at 

u o o 

O O CO 

g in cm 



^ 



^ 



CM o O LO 


CO 


> rH C- 


^ 


O O 




+3 O O 


S 


10 -p +> 


O 


O rH 


EH 


O d O O 




O -p O O 


i 


» O O O 



•h e 



bj 


c 


E 


•-M 


o 


>-» 


tin 


H 


a 


4» 


•H 







CJ 


>S 


U 


,Q 


•rl 




-d 


-d 




CO 


TJ 


p 





§ 


> 





• rl 


i 


O 


B 


o 


H 


CO 


Oh 


u 


&. 




3 


a 


gg 


o 




•H 




+> 


d 


d 


o 
■H 


1 


-P 


O 


d 


^ 


o 


•H 


o 




BO 


a 


CO 


d 



d 


Pa 




S 


CO 


fl 


o 


h 


© 


•H 




O 


P 


r-t 


^2 


.- 


C5 




B 


3 


o 


CO 


1 


d 


s 


a 


« 


-p 








-o 


CO 


Cm 


1 


6 


O 


O 






•H 


'.1 


CO 


-P 


^i 


c< 


d 


o 





■3 





p 


•rl 


^3 


L 


H 


!3 


d 

5 




to 


CO 


o 


Pi 


>H 




C 




o 


o 


^ 


rH 




<r4 


.- 


-p 


CD 


d 


c 


1-1 


rH 

■ H 


o 

o 



d > u 

3 eS 

o 

CM f= P 

«? O O 

CD Va ^ 

rH «W £ 



rH C~ lO 



-107- 



Table 22 has been prepared from the some data on the besis of the 
population of the municipalities concerned rather than the number thereof. 
It shows that two-thirds of the more than 45 million persons residing in 
these 192 cities arc served by recreation departments consolidated with or 
otherwise affiliated with the park services of these cities. In many of 
these latter the ho ad of tho department frequently acts as superintendent 
of recreation also. Only a little more than one-quarter are served by 
independent recreation departments. 

In most of the large cities of Canada recreation is likewise attached 
to the park services. In Montreal it seems to be consolidated with parks 
as a bureau in the Public Works Department. 



-108- 



Chapter 9 

ADVANTAGES OF CONSOLIDATION 

Some of the benefits to be derived from consolidation of the two 
departments may be inferred from the discussion of the disadvantages arising 
from existing conditions and present operations. Others have been stated in 
positive terms. The advantages may be summed up as follows: 

1. Reduct ion in the number of departments . This would be a step in 
the direction of simplifying the organization of the city government. Fewer 
departments decrease the number of commissions and commissioners reporting to 
the city's chief executive and thus increase his span of control. It is a 
step forward in top management. The theory is that the fewer executives there 
are who must report to the head of an organization, the better. As it is now 
the Mayor must make too many appointments to office and must look to too many 
commissioners to keep his finger on the pulse of the city government. His 
time would be saved and his hands strengthened by consolidation. 

2. Removal of confusion arising from the existence of two rival 
depa rtments so similar in objectives and with similar facilities but di fferent 
policies . Despite tho fact that the Recreation Department labels the play- 
grounds under its control, it is evident that a considerable part of the public 
docs not know -which department has jurisdiction of particular properties among 
the many scattered throughout the city - nor do they caro. Tho fact that in 
numerous instances park and recreation properties adjoin each other makes it 
even more confusing, for it is often impossible to know where one ends or the 



-109- 



other begins. This confusion extends to high official circles, go that 
complaints of conditions or recommendations for suggested improvements are 
frequently forwarded to the wrong department. 

3. Development of a strong united agency for public recreotion . This 
should result in better service to all parts of the city by enabling oach 
division to concentrate on its own problems As was pointed out in the 
previous chapter, "vital, interested, progressive service of the public 
function - Community Recreation - should be the primary consideration, rather 
than control of property ......." Tho criticism has been made of both 

departments that they are too much concerned with the development of physical 
properties and not enough with the public in whose services the so properties 
are used. As a result the program has suffered. That may be one of the 
reasons for the very substantial drop in patronage at some of the playgrounds, 
though there are probably other reasons also. Consolidation would permit 
the department butter equipped for the purpose to organize on a city-wide 
basis for the complete job of beautifying and maintaining both park squares 
and playgrounds, and the other to concentrate on a more complete program of 
supervised activities wherever there are suitable facilities and the need is 
evident. The city and its citizens would benefit from such specialized 
organization. 

Comments secured from several cities in which the two services are 
combined stressed this advantage. Superintendent Davis of Berkeley said in 
a telephone conversation that consolidation results in a "marked improvement 
in standards." John J. Considine, General Superintendent of Parks and 
Recreation in Detroit, wrote: "Beautification of certain playgrounds owned 
by the Department of Recreation was effected ... service to the public wan 

-110- 



greatly increased The people will be better satisfied with the 

amalgamation of the two departments." T. Byrne Morgan, Director of Parks 
and Recreation of Louisville, stated: 



"There is a good deal to be said in favor of a regular consolidated 

Board This Department in the past five years, or since the 

organization of the Department, has done more in the way of making 
our parks more useful and enlarging our Recreation Program to the 
advantage of everyone, together with the amount of equipment we have, 
than was ever done (previously) within fifteen years." 



Leo B. Calland, Assistant to the City Manager of San Diego for Recreation, 
commenting on the reorganization effected in that city (on July 1, 1945) in 
anticipation of the actual merger, which was approved and went into effect 
on March 11, 1947, wrote as follows: 



"I believe the present operation has proven of benefit through 
better coordination of planning and operations of the various 
departments concerned ..... 

"To date there has been no particular saving in the budget, except 
that it is felt that the public is receiving more service for the 
money 

"The proposed merger .... will eliminate some duplication of work 
by the personnel of the two departments. In general, the Recreation 
Department will be responsible for programming and conducting activ- 
ities which they are best suited for, and the Park Department will 
be responsible for all maintenance and landscaping of recreation 
areas, as well as of passive park areas. At present most of our 
municipal recreation areas are 'eye-sores' in the community from the 
aesthetic standpoint, and many of our park areas are not used to the 
best advantage for recreation purposes." 



Alfred MacDonald, Director, Board of Park Commissioners of T7ichita, Kansas, 
who stated he had been engaged in such work for 30 years, commented on the 
situation where park and recreation services are operated independently of 
each other in the following language: 



-111- 



"This policy results in constant bickerings, Misunderstandings, 
overlapping, inefficiency, with the public being the victim 
because of lack of service and because of increased taxes... In 
Detroit I watched from the sidelines a Board of Park Commissioners 
and a recreation division trying to work together on such a double 
hoaded project. I understand it did not succeed. Once when I 
visited Detroit both agencies were at 'swords points 1 with one 
another." 



4. Bett er super vision of maintenance and operating pe rsonnel and 
a ctiviti es* As it is now the supervising personnel of the two departments, 

as well as some of the operating personnel also, must cover the same territory, 
hence frequently cross each others' paths. This involves excess travel, and 
too much time spent behind the steering wheel of an automobile that could be 
better devoted to actual on-the-ground supervision or maintenance. For 
example, instead of requiring each of the supervisors of grounds to cover 
the entire city, the territory could be divided into approximately equal 
districts in terms of area and facilities. Not only would the public get 
better service; the jobs of these supervisors would be less onerous. 

5. More complete and better rounded staffs . Many of the unit divisions 
are small and unbalanced. The engineering and building maintenance staffs of 
the Recreation Department particularly are inadequate and incomplete. As one 
result it must depend to a great extent upon interdepartmental and contractual 
services. The combination of the two staffs would benefit both departments, 
enabling them to build up forces properly equipped to meet all needs and to 
render better, faster, more complete service. The personnel would also 
benefit. They would have more opportunities for promotion open to them. As 

it is now some of the men find themselves at dead ends. The difficulties 
arising now from having employees responsible for supervising the work of 
others of equal rank would be obviated. Differences in the work and 



-112- 



responsibilities of apparently like classes of employees would become apparent 
and make reclassification more likely if nerited. Superintendent Davis of 
Berkeley said that consolidation eliminates strife and makes for a happier 
arrangment; "the men are better satisfied." And Major Braden, Western 
Representative of the National Recreation Association, reporting in person 
on the results to date of the consolidation in the city of Los Angeles, said 
that the park personnel felt they were much better off. 

6. More complete shops and equipment, as a result of coordination of 
maintenance facilities * Despite duplication of considerable equipment in the 
two departments, requests for additional equipment or replacements of worn out 
equipment must frequently be denied. Consolidation would permit unification 
of shops and operating equipment with consequent greater efficiency resulting 
from more complete and more modern equipment in better condition. Both 
departments are pressing for modernization of shops, yards and warehouses. 

One such unit properly outfitted to meet the needs of both departments would 
cost less and be cheaper to operate, and would moan less idle time for 
expensive pieces of major equipment. Unification would probably also result 
in reserves, the existence of which would obviate the need of occasionally 
keeping well-paid operators idle while such equipment was undergoing repair* 
It should also obviate the need for having such equipment repair work done at 
times requiring the payment of overtime wages. 

7. More efficient operation, the natural result of the foregoing 
advantages . This advantage was pointed to by the heads of a number of 
consolidated departments from whom comments were secured. Superintendent 
Davis of Berkeley said "it makes for more efficient administration. " Dir ct ,r 
MacDonald of Wichita, Kansas, wrotei 



-113- 



"Here we feel that such an operation . .. of both park activities and 
recreation is the only logical way to do the job because all respon- 
sibility is placed on and assumed by one agency for the maintenance 
of facilities, the use of facilities and for program. In our 
opinion, in this way, and in this way alone, can both operate and 
serve with maximum efficiency end effectiveness." 

He also commented on tho consolidation in Detroit as having "combined the park 
and recreational work ir a vrienner which result- in greater efficiency and 
effectiveness." And General Superintendent Considine of Detroit himself wrote 
that "duplication in the work in parks and playfields was eliminated. .. .Various 
units were able to consolidate and the work carried on more efficiently." 
Mayor Fant of Shrevopox^t v/rote "We find this (consolidation) works to much 
better advantage as the two (departments) are closely related." And Director 
Morgan of Louisville: 

"It has done a great deal insofar as duplication and overlapping 
of duties in the Department of Parks and the Department of Vfelfare, 
in which the Recreation Department was originally, and in our 
opinion, is a much better arrangement than under the old Board of 
Park Commissioners...." 

8. Economy, though it might be said that immediate economies would 
be of minor consequence . Hence no effort has been made to estimate the 
immediate savings that might be expected from a merger. There should be some 
economies possible in the central administration, from consolidation of "the 
accounting, personnel, procurement and general clerical staffs* Coordination 
of the maintenance forces into a single unit and scheduling and supervision 
of this unit to cover both sets of properties should permit much more work to 
be done at the some or less cost. 

The really measurable savings, however, should come from eliminating 
the duplication and overlapping that has developed in facilities that ar^ not 



-114- 



now utilized to the fullest extent, and the proper development and use of a 
i.iore complote program of service should moke unnecessary the acquisition of 
some of the property now proposed. 

Hence the real economy vail come in the future when the program 
contemplated in the Master Plan for Youth, whether modified appreciably or 
n r 't, becomes a reality. For the full cost has not been met when land is 
ourchased, grounds laid out, courts paved and convenience stations cr club- 
houses constructed and equipment procured and sot up, with lights for night 
use of playgrounds which can now be used only by day. Much norc is involved. 
There must be personnel to plan the program and supervise it in operation, as 
well as other personnel to conduct the operations and to maintain the facil- 
ities. This is a continuing need. Therefore the more the program is expanded, 
the greater will be the savings from the elimination of duplication and 
overlapping. 

9. Adequate developme nt and use of park ana other municipally owned 
lands for public recreation. As it is now, the development of much park land 
and numerous squares under the control of the Fark Department is similar to 
that under the Recreation Commission; but the supervisory and administrative 
policies vary because of a different philosophy. The services would benefit 
by uniform policies - and so would the public. There are several neighbor- 
hoods with landscaped and play areas under park auspices which are sadly 
lacking in facilities for supervised recreation for the younger element, and 
in which proper development to make up for this lack would fill a long-felt 
need an i make independent extension by a rival department unnecessary. There 
arc instances in which this rivalry takes out of use lands which might con- 
ceivablv be returned to the tax rolls. 



-115- 



The Recreation Department is not alone in having an extensive program 
for postwar development. Park development is also incomplete. The postwar 
program submitted by the Park Department included 75 projects with a total 
estimated cost in excess of $12,000,000 including $500,000 for land, most of 
which was to round out and complete McLaren Park. With the budget for 
1946-47 the Department submitted a revised five year program of capital 
outlays calling for an expenditure of $9,120,550. (See Table 23) This 
program includes areas, the best use of which can be determined only if the 
two departments merge. 

There may be other city-owned properties on which use for recreation 
might be developed as a by-product. In Nov; York City the Dock Department has 
roofed over the second stories of several of its commercial piers for use by 
the Park Department as playgrounds for children and as evening recreation 
centers for adults, with the Dock Department furnishing the maintenance. 
Many municipal water departments throughout the country have opened their 
properties to recreational use. In a few instances they have actually con- 
strticted recreational facilities such as picnic grounds, swimming pools, base* 
ball diamonds, tennis courts, etc. Some water properties in this city have 
been treated to function as landscaped park squares. The possibility of 
concreting and sodding reservoirs for active recreational use should be 
studied and tested as an alternative to the acquisition of other properties. 

Duplication Despite Inadequate Facilities 

It is only by making such effective use of publicly owned areas and 
facilities in accordance with present needs and concepts that the really 
measurable savings will come. 



-117- 



This requires coordination and cooperation, and it can be secured best 
through a merger of the two departments. Otherwise the city must continue to 
suffer from the lack of needed facilities, despite the excessive burdens 
stemming from the rivalry of two separate organizations with similar objectives 
each pursuing its own way while competing for funds and patronage; the results 
can be naught but continued duplication, overlapping and' inefficiency, with 
consequent unnecessary expense to the citizens and taxpayers, and without 
justifiable return to warrant the added costs. 

Ellis-Polk Needs 

It has been seen that whereas, on the one hand, an undue proportion of 
the total area of the city has been set aside permanently to remain open space, 
there is, on the other, a lack of needed recreational facilities in many of the 
congested portions of the city. The Parent Teachers Association has stressed 
the lack of playgrounds in the 323 square block area from Julius Kahn Play- 
ground on the west to Helen Wills on the east and Funston on the north. They 
have similarly pointed to the inadequacy of such provision within Hayes Valley, 
one of the city's heavily populated districts. The City Planning Commission 
has likewise indicated the need in these older central districts of the city. 

The 1946 report of the Juvenile Court shows that the incidence of 
juvenile delinquency was heaviest in the Polk -Ell is Coordinating Council 
District, -which corresponds with these sections of the city. Of the 1,041 
official cases, those in which petitions were filed, 174 or exactly one-sixth 
came from this district. Eliminating the transients and out-of-state cases 
increases the proportion to 22.5 percent. The ratio of unofficial cases was 
only slightly smaller. During the fiscal year 1945-46 almost 27 percent of 



•118- 



' ':'•: 



■ 









, . 



■ 



the children who come before the court with legal residences in this city- 
lived in this district at the tine of arrest or referral. 

In addition to Dubocc Park, there are within this district three park 
squares of approximately twelve acres each. All four have some play facilities. 
They might conceivably be developed more in accordance with modern standards 
to servo the people much better and to serve more people than they do in their 
present form. However, repeated suggestions that at least supervision and 
organized programs of play in these squares be provided by the Recreation 
Department have as repeatedly been rejected by park authorities. 

TJithin a couple of blocks of Corona Heights on the south and a similar 
distance from the Panhandle on the north lies Buena Vista Park. This is a 
veritable jungle of 36 acres which is all but useless in its present form. 
Not only arc people afrrid to use it; many of them fear even to pass by. 
Requests for development of a portion of this park for supervision by the 
Recreation Department have likewise been turned down by the park authorities, 
who have scheduled an expenditure of $250, 000 for its development. The 
question also arises whether it would not be as suitable as Corona Heights 
as the site of the Junior Museum, if and when it is built. This is entirely 
apart from the question of the need for this project in view of the junior 
science workshops planned in conjunction with the planetarium to be built by 
the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park nearby. 

South of Market and Mission Districts 

The South of Karkct District is badly in need of adequate grounds for 
baseball, to provide as well for the numerous privately organized groups 
nearby. The Park Department controls Columbia Square, adjacent to Father 

-119- 



Crowley Playground, and is asking for funds for redevelopment now that the 
army has turned it back to ttie city. However, the best use suggested by the 
interests in this industrial section is for parking. 

Franklin Square, about a mile to the southwest of Father Crowley Play- 
ground, is surrounded by industrial property on three sides, including the 
Potrero err barns of the Municipal Railway to the south. The tennis court has 
boon abandoned, and about a third of the 4.4 acres are left untended. Observa- 
tion indicates that its legitimate use as a neighborhood square is extremely 
limited, with an average of perhaps three mothers weekly tending baby buggies. 
The caretaker complained of lawn destruction by boys batting baseballs around 
and the excessive patronage of drunks who use it as a dormitory or worse. 7«ith 
proper development and supervision this square could furnish a badly needed 
baseball field for the Mission. It could be used by -those who, for other 
playground needs, patronize Folsom Playground nearby, as well as by the 
members of the San Francisco and the Columbia Boys clubs, who must now travel 
to Rolph Playground for the purpose. The Mission Community Center is also in 
the district; and the nearby St. Charles Parochial School is lacking even 
ordinary playyard space. 

About a mile to the west of Franklin Square is Mission Park. This is 
partially developed with playground facilities and has a part-time playground 
director. Opposite this park is the Mission High School, with its playfield, 
and a block away are the Sanchez School, tho Everett Junior High School and 
two Catholic schools. Repeated requests for supervision of Mission Park by the 
Recreation Department have been rejected, as have also suggestions for leveling 
part of the park for a baseball diamond, which would be a godsend to the 
district. It would also permit better coordination with the Recreation 

-120- 



Department 1 s Mission Playground only a block away, at 19th and Angelica 
Streets. 

Jackson Playground 

Jackson Playground, in use since about 1911 or 1912, presents a 
different problem. The district in which it is located has changed in character. 
It has become increasingly industrial and commercial, and the City Planning 
Commission's Land Use Plan proposes that industrial and commercial uses in this 
area be increased. The records of the Recreation Department show a decline of 
one-half in the attendance since 1930-31. Observation indicated comparatively 
little use of the playground except for baseball; and a short loft field makes 
it dangerous for those using the courts while a baseball game is in progress. 
There is a small clubhouse which is noorly attended because people fear to enter 
the district at night. 

For the above reasons there are those who feel the need for this play- 
ground has ceased. Mr. Raymond Daugherty, Director of Physical Education of 
the school department, however, thinks it needed for interschool athletics at 
least. According to Mr. Daugherty it is used by the baseball teams of the 
schools within a short distance, which include Everett, Horace Mann ond James 
Lick Jurior High Schools, as well as Lick TVilmerding School. If this is its 
major use and solo olaim to survival, then it Trould appear to be a proper 
ward of the School Dapartment. It is to be questioned whether this field 
would continue to be so used by the School Department if it had to purchase 
the property and bear the entire cost of maintenance. Certainly the matter 
should be considered carefully in the light cf the facilities available and 
to be provided in the expansion program. 



■ 



. 






James Rolph Jr» Playground 

An example of the possibilities inherent in study and cooperation is 

furnished by this popular playground operated by the Recreation Department. 

Attendance figures for the year ended June 30, 1945 were 152,000 and almost 

175,000 the following year. It is lighted for night use. This playground is 

inadequate and improperly located from every standpoint: 

1» It is at the extreme corner of the area it should serve - that 
to the west of Potrero Street and north of Army. 

2. It attracts children who must cross these two heavy traffic 
thoroughfares, with consequent danger of accident. Furthermore, 
these two streets are to be developed into even more important 
arterial highways. 

3. Although used for baseball, it is too small for a regulation 
diamond. The department plans to square out the site by adding 
half an acre at a cost estimated at $50,000. This compares with 
the $65,000 spent for the present 3.08 acres. 

4. The property is too valuable for its present use, being more 
suitable for commercial or industrial development. It is 
appraised by the Director of Property at *107,800 and probably 
will be worth much more in future. 

Only six blocks away lies Garfield Square, under the jurisdiction of 
the Park Department. It has limited use as a neighborhood Bquare and children's 
playground. If this were enlarged and developed properly as a district play- 
field, with a regulation baseball diamond, it would serve the entire section 
and the city much better. It would then not have to be limited to those under 
16 years of age, as Rolph is now. Then nearb;y Bernal Square could be turned 
into a real square, as a result of which it would be more useful and ornamental 
than it is today. 



• 



! 



Dup 1 i cation and Inadequacy in the Sunset 

At the present time with the exception of Sunset Playground at Lawton 
and 28th A^oeuo* the only play facilities available in the Sunset district 
are concentrated within an area of about half a mile from Nineteenth Avenuo 
to 23th Avenue on the west and about three-quartors of a mile from Santiago 
on the north to Sloat Boulevard on the south. '.'Jithin this area, in addition 
to Sigmund Stern Grove and the ir »"awona bowling greens, there are throe Park 
Department properties. 

Immediately adjoining the bowling greens, from which it is separated 
only by TTawona Street, lies Larsen Park, which covers two square blocks, an 
area of 6.6 acres, on the west side of nineteenth Avenue. It slopes gently 
away to the west. There are two tennis courts and a convenience station. A 
large open field is available for free play, but is too narrow for baseball. 
There is no supervision. Located as it is en an important arterial highway, 
it is a valuable piece of property, probably more valuable than the $125,000 
at which it has been appraised. It was deeded to the city as a gift for park 
and playground purposes in 1926. If unused for such purposes, it would 
probably have to be returned to the donor or his heirs. Yet it inight be better 
to make such disposition of it and transfer the activities thereon to the site 
of the unused bowling greens - and incidentally save the cost of the clubhouse 
proposed by the Recreation Department. It's worth thinking about anyway* 

Close by also to the northwest of Larsen Park is LlcCoppin Square, 
occupying 7.57 acres bounded by Taraval Street on the south and Santiago on 
the north, between 22nd and 24th Avemies» and immediately south of the 
Lincoln High School property. It is more centrally located for the district 



-123- 



it servos then is Larson Perk. It is practically a playground now, and popular. 
It has a baseball diamond, 2 tennis courts, a small children's play area and 
a convenience station. Its proximity to Lincoln High makes possible its 
further development in combination with the development of the school field 
along progressive modern lines somewhat like that planned for the '".est 
Sunset Civic Center. 

Parkside Square, practically the same size as McCoppin, adjoins Pine 
Lake Park on the north across Wawona Street between 26th and 28th Avenues. It 
is in a pocket, badly located with relation to the district it should serve; 
and on the 28th Avenue side is opposite on orphanage which has its own play 
facilities. It contains a softball diamond and 4 tennis courts, as well as 
small children's play equipment and a convenience station. It might well be 
mistaken for a Recreation Department unit, but is without supervision. It 
docs not seem to be too well patronized; but repeated requests for supervision 
by the Recreation Department have been made by the parents and civic agencies 
in the district and as repeatedly rejected. If located more centrally some- 
what to the northwest it would serve the district better. Even where it is, 
it would serve the district better with supervision. 

■What is true of existing facilities is just as true of some of those 
planned. For example, the location proposed for Francis Scott Key Playground, 
in the Ilorth Sunset area, is only one block from Golden Gate Park. As the site 
selected is solidly built up, its taking would mean the destruction of badly 
needed housing, as well as excessive cost. The estimated requirements for 
acquiring the property are $245,000 as compared with only §80,000 for a 
similar block in the South Sunset for bare land. Two of the playgrounds now 



-124- 



in operation in the Richmond district are even closer to the park - less than 
half a block. 

In New York City they built twenty marginal playgrounds on the fringes 
of Central Park, "near the entrances." It was found advisable to do so in 
order "to intercept the children" and, by thus providing them with play space, 
reduce the damage to lawns and landscaped areas within the park, which were 
being torn to pieces by active youngsters. Central Park is smaller than 
Golden Gate Park, yet from 2-g- to three times as valuable. Thy shouldn't the 
same policy be followed in this city? There is a dearth of playground space 
between 7th and 19th Avenues from Irving Street to Sloat Boulevard. The need 
is evident in many blocks where children play on the streets with makeshift- 
courts painted on the pavements and athletic standards nailed to utility poles. 
The need could be met at least in part by such fringe playgrounds. 

Holly Park Circle 

As was told above, this was one of the properties turned over by the 
Park Department to the Playground Commission early in the history of the latter , 
but was returned a few years later, evidently because its use for playground 
purposes was premature. A later attempt at retransfer was unsuccessful. Since 
then, St. I'ary's has been acquired. Considerable sums have already been 
spent on fill, drainage and preparatory work, largely during the days of T7PA. 
The plans of the department call for the expenditure of almost $400,000 for 
improvements of which $212,000 is for development of the grounds and $175,000 
for a community center. 



-125- 



Holly Park Circlo is only two blocks from the northern rim of 
St. Mary's on the heights overlooking the latter. It contains a typical park 
playground development, including a couple of handball courts, which seem to 
be used more for batting a hard ball against the walls than for handball. 
A p-J"t-tine playground director is supposed to be assigned for supervision, 
though he was not in evidence at the time this park was observed. Bcrna.1 
Playground and Center are only a few blocks away, on an acre of ground that 
must also provide for a library. Holly Park contains 7.5 acres. 

The surrounding territory is much more closely built up than is that 
surrounding St. Mary's. Directly opposite is a public housing project. It 
may be that development of St. Mary's is still premature; and that it would 
be worth considering first the redevelopment of Holly Park, to include a 
baseball diamond. The presence of College Hill reservoir across the street 
on the northwest furnishes the opportunity for testing out the possibilities 
of the use of such water properties, cither by concreting for some of the 
playground apparatus, or for treatment to provide landscaping and passive 
recreation features*'. 

Cooperation with School s 

The history of the Recreation Department shows that there has been 
close cooperation with the schools from the start; and it has gene far in the 
matter of such cooperation. The Education Department has made a large number 
of its otherwise unused properties available for use as pla3^grounds or 
centers. The Recreation Department, on the ether hand, suoervises more than 
30 schoolyards regularly throughout the year after school hours and on 
Saturdays and holidays as well as during the vacation period, when it adds to 



-126- 



the number, though not to the same extent as formerly. It carries on a 
program five nights weekly throughout the year in practically all the .junior 
high school gymnasia; and makes some limited use of senior high schools because 
these are generally unavailable on account of the evening adult program of the 
school system. Its ovrn facilities are open to the extent possible for intra- 
mural and intermural school athlc-tics. It has gone even further in locating 
playgrounds where possible adjacent to schools or very close by, so as to make 
thorn available for school use. Sunset Civic Center should prove the ideal in 
such cooperation. 

There arc, however, still numerous playfields, particularly those 
attached to high schools, which are used to only a limited extent, yet are 
unavailable for the use of the Recreation Department. The need for such 
facilities as the Clement Tennis Courts would be highly questionable if the 
courts on the grounds of George Washington High School, only a block and a half 
distant, were open to general use after school hours. 

The legal authority for close cooperation of the schools with other 
local authorities and provision for community recreation to be found in 
Sections 14,401 to 14,411 of the School Code shotild be the basis for the 
closest cooperation possible. Despite the fact that the schools axe financed 
in part from state funds, "the fact remains that the ultimate source of those 
funds is the same as that from which the Recreation Department, the Park 
department and other city activities arc financed. Any savings derived from 
cooperation would ultimately find their way back to the pockets of the same 
citizens and taxpayers. 



-127- 



Effect of Addit ional Facili ti es on P at ronage 

Tfaile come parts of the program of expansion are intended merely to 
extend the provision of narks, squares, playgrounds and centers to new areas 
now lacking such facilities entirely, other parts provide for the further 
improvement or rehabilitation of existing facilities or the addition of new 
elements to complete and round out the activities. This is in line with the 
ideal programs set forth by recreation authorities, and parallels similar 
programs of expansion being pursued in other cities where the recreation 
interests are active. As yet no municipality seems to have boon in a position 
to develop the program in its entirety or to the satisfaction of its proponents. 
Hence nowhere is there any information available to indicate the actual need 
and practicability of such a program financially or otherwise. Until now, 
because the need seemed so evident and provision so inadequate, no questions 
have arisen as the public flocked to and overran each additional facility 
placed into operation. 

Organized recreation now has a history of almost four decades of 
development in San Francisco. The city has been generous in its financial 
provision for this as for all forms of public recreation. Not only have new 
facilities been added, but new activities hipve been undertaken. Even without 
the influence of recent inflationary factors, annual expenditures for operation 
and maintenance of the supervised activities of the Recreation Department 
increased by more than 150 percent in the fifteen years following 1930-31. 
From a per capita standpoint of such expenditures, as of those for public 
recreation as a whole, San Francisco is well in the front rank of large cities. 



-128- 



The time may havo come to pause for talcing stock and measuring results. 
What has been the effect of the new facilities, if any, on the old? Has there 
been a corresponding increase in patronage? Isn't it possible that the pro- 
vision of some special district or city-wide facilities may have had the effect 
of drawing attendance away from neighborhood playgrounds? Or perhaps there are 
other factors that may have had the same effect. If so, what should be done 
about it? 

Those questions are raised by a consideration and analysis of the 
statistics of attendance maintained by the department. These statistics 
indicate that the growth in facilities made available has not necessarily 
been paralleled by a like growth in patronage. This is indicated roughly by 
the following tabulation: 

Table 24 
NUMBER OF AND ATTENDANCE AT PLATGROUNDS AND CENTERS AND AT SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS 
UNDER CONTROL OF AND SUPERVISED BY RECREATION DEPARTMENT 
SELECTED YEARS 1930-31 TO 1945-46 

Fiscal Playgrounds and Centers School Playgrounds 

yoar Number Attendance Average Number Attendance Average 



1930-31 


30 


3,762.625 


125,421 


19 


484,596 


25, 


505 


1959-40 


44 


5,178 : 072 


117,683 


27 


706,858 


26, 


180 


1944-45 


49 (1) 


2,969,136 


60,595 


29 


466, 3C7 


16, 


C30 


1945-46 


49 (1) 


3,818,857 


77,936 


30 


558,985 


13; 


630 



(1) Includes three permanent housing units 

Admittedly the situation is not quite as bad as it looks from the raw 
figures. The averages fcr the playgrounds and centers have been affected 
severely by two facts in particulars (1) later additions did not include such 
large and popular playgrounds as North Beach, Father Crowley and Funston, with 
attendances such as to raise the general average, and (2) the reduced attendance 



-129- 



at the two latter because of their use by the armed services. The attendance 
at Crocker -Amazon, which was not in existence in 1930-31 was only little more 
than a fifth in 1945-46 as compared with that of 1939-40 because of the 
situation there, described in Chapter 3. These facts alone explain away a 
large part of the decreased attendance below that of 1939-40. 

Despite that, the fact nevertheless remains that with few exceptions, 
the individual units show greatly reduced attendance below that of 1930-31, or 
in the case of those not then in existence, below that of 1939-40. This is 
indicated in the tabulations below: 



Table 25 

COMPARATIVE ATTENDANCE AT SELECTED PLAYGROUNDS AND CENTERS 

1930-31 .AND 1945-46 

Attendance Decrease 

Playground or Center 1930-31 1945-46 Amount P ercent 



Argonnc 


95,203 


57,524 


37,679 


39»6 


Bay view 


73,126 


36,394 


36,732 


50.2 


Chinese 


153,444 


119,273 


34,171 


22.5 


Folsom 


84,672 


47,000 


37,672 


44c 5 


Hamilton 


143,020 


78,134 


61,886 


45,4 


Hayward - Girls 


80,356 


56,960 


23-396 


2 Q 1 


Jackson 


151,196 


80,295 


70,901 


4r..: 


Levi Strauss 


37,077 


21,650 


15,427 


c. : 


Michelangelo 


90,894 


37,516 


53,578 


58 . r 


North Bodoh 


4CJ.498 


179 j 224 


224„274 


5=5 b 


Ocean View 


116,959 


68,085 


48,874 


41 -8 


Portola 


168,. S09 


93,385 


70., 224 


41-6 


Presidio Heights 


5S 738 


22,242 


30., 483 


57-3 


Richmond No» 1 


110,274 


23,956 


86,318 


73 3 


James Roiph Jr. 


174,223 


119,320 (1) 


54,403 


51,2 


West Portal 


88,535 


18,929 


69,606 


73.6 



(l) Increase of 40,000 over 1939-40, when night lighting was provided 
but reduction of 32,233 or 21,2 percent below 1944-45 



-130- 



Table 26 

COMPARATIVE ATTENDANCE AT SELECTED PLAYGROUNDS AND CENTERS 

1939-40 AND 1945-46 



Playground or Center 



Apt os 

Cabrillo 

Clement Tennis Courts 

Eolsom 

Fulton 

Oilman 

Hayward - Boys 
Hayward - Girls 
Mission 
North Beach 

North Beach Annex 
Richmond Tennis Courts 
Visitacion 
Yiest Portal 
Junior Museun 



Attendance 
1939-40 1945-46 



136,053 
73,473 
33,999 

103,679 
69,245 

114,420 
300,171 
107,833 
228,645 
237,392 

61,603 
33,866 
156,610 
36,857 
49,738 



110,172 
31,092 
10,825 
47,000 
47,819 

60,874 
133,043 

56,960 
158,015 
179,224 

8,360 

8,534 

102,232 

18,929 

31,519 



Decrease 




Amount 


Percent 


25,881 


19.0 


42,381 


57.7 


23,174 


6C.2 


56,679 


54.7 


21,426 


31.0 


53,546 


46.8 


162,128 


54.0 


50,873 


47.2 


70,630 


31.0 


53,168 


24.3 


53,243 


36.4 


25,282 


74.6 


54,378 


34.7 


17,928 


48.6 


18,219 


S6.6 



Some schoolyards show the same large drop, whereas others seem to 
have held up. On the whole, however, only about a dozen of the schoolyards 
supervised in 1930-31 are still being used currently, so that no similar 
comparison cm be made with that year; hence is made with 1939-40. 



-131- 



Table 27 
COMPARATIVE ATTENDANCE AT SELECTED SCHOOLYARDS 
1939-10 AND 1945-16 







Attendance 


> 


Decrease 




Schoolyard 




1939-40 


1945-46 


Amount 


Percent 


Argonne 




33,474 


20,599 


12,875 


38. 5 


Bryant 




15,991 


10,639 


5,352 


33.5 


Douglass 




23,081 


12,025 


11,056 


47.9 


Edison 




32,914 


22,088 


10,826 


32.9 


Everett Jr. High 


29,298 


11,666 


17,632 


60.2 


Andrew Jackson 




31,927 


15,329 


16,598 


52.0 


Jefferson 




37,508 


22,824 


14,684 


39.1 


Francis Scott Kay 


22,995 


16,926 


6,069 


26.4 


Lafayette 




20,111 


13,359 


6,752 


33.6 


James Lick, Jr. 


High 


38,675 


14,044 


24,631 


63.7 


Horace Mann Jr. 


High 


27,314 


18,126 


9,188 


33.6 


McKinley 




36,024 


11,285 (1) 


24,739 


68.7 


John I'ui;' 




33,084 


22,495 


10,589 


32.0 


Pacific Heights 




26,466 


16,292 


10,174 


38.4 


Jean Parker 




32,674 


17,973 


14,701 


45.0 


Redding 




29,604 


16,106 


13,498 


45.6 


Winfield Scott 




44,111 


27,203 


16,908 


38.3 


Raphael Weill 




36,929 


26,712 


10,217 


27.7 


(1) 1944- 


15 - c 


losed down July 26, 


1946 







Vacation schoolyard attendance has shown an even more startling 
decrease. This appears in Table 28, below: 



Table 28 
COMPARATIVE ATTENDANCE IN VACATION SCHOOLYARDS 
1939-40 AND 1941-42 TO 1915-46 



Year 

1939-40 
1941-42 
1942-43 
IS '." - 14 
1944-45 
1945-46 









Decrease 


from 


"umber 


of 




1959- 


10 




schoolyards 


opened 


Attendance 


Amount 




Percent 


40 




199,552 








37 




194,463 


5,039 




2.5 


38 




132, 471 


67,081 




33.6 


36 




110,832 


88,720 




44.4 


35 




122,433 


77,119 




38.7 


30 




57,993 


141,559 




70.9 



-132- 



The number of schoolyards given is the number opened. Gome may have 
bom open only one or two days or a few weeks. Thus 11 were closed prematurely 
in 1945-46 as, likewise, in 1942-43. Only 11 wore scheduled for the summer of 
1917. 

In explanation of such reduced attendance the department stated that 
while the method of taking the counts of unit attendance had not been altered, 
there was a change in that about 1911 an order went out calling for the daily 
submission of attendance ruports in place of weekly reports required previously. 
The result was a substantial drop in the attendance reported. Furthermore, the 
blackout during the war reduced night attendance at facilities where lights 
had been provided for night use. Moreover, the fact that many minors were 
working meant they did not have as much time for recreation. 

These factors may have been an influence. There may have even been 
others, such as war and postwar prosperity, providing money for commercial 
amusements, which enjoyed a boom. 

They do not, however, furnish a complete answer. Some playgrounds and 
centers showed increased attendance in the intervening years which have been 
maintained in some instances and lost in others. Some show practically static 
attendance. Others show steady, moderate or substantial increases from year to 
year since 1942-45, at times to the extent of making up wholly or in part for 
previous losses from an earlier period. Others, after making substantial 
progress in regaining lost patronage, showed substantial declines in 1945-46 
below that of 1944-45. 



-153- 



In the meantime, however, gymnasia, of which there wore only three in 
operation in 1930-31, acquired a substantial following and increased to 15 in 
1945-46, although the attendance that year was even slightly lower than that 
recorded in only ten in 1939-40, and about 8 percent lower than that in 14 
operated during 1942-43. Attendance in teen-age centers seems to be going up, 
though the record is too brief to show real tendencies. Patronage in the 
permanent housing units seems to be on tho increase j but the shifts in the 
temporary ones, some of which have been closed, makes comment difficult on 
these. 

The marked decreases in individual instances, running to more than 85 
percent, is more than interesting. Their significance is important. It is 
difficult not to believe that in some instances at least the declines are due 
to the provision of additional facilities which furnished competition which 
could not bo overcome, possibly because they were more attractive, more 
conveniently located, or wore directed by better personnel. In some cases there 
may have been a combination of two or more of these factors. 

The 50 percent decrease at Bayview, for example, may be due to the 
growing industrialization of that area and the existence of more attractive 
facilities at Oilman, not far away. Hence it may be that this decrease cannot 
be overcome by any measures taken. Yet how explain an almost similar decrease 
at the latter playground in the last six or seven years, so that the combined 
patronage at both these playgrounds in 1945-46 was only little mere than that 
at Bayview alone in 1930-31? 



-134- 



The decrease of 42 percent at Levi Strauss Playground since 1930-31 has 
brought the attendance down to a point that, on a daily average basis, is so 
small as to raise the question of continued need therefor, especially when it 
is realized that this daily average is in units of attendance, secured by 
adding the count taken two or three times daily, To what extent is the loss 
at this playground permanent and due to the housing recreation unit in 
Valenoia Gardens a block away? The 35,132 attendance units recorded at 
Valencia Gardens for 1945-46 was somewhat more than double the loss at Levi 
Strauss Playground. 

Decreases of nearly 60 to almost 80 percent, such as were recorded at 
Clement and Richmond Tennis Courts, Michelangelo, Presidio Heights, Richmond 
No. 1 and Tfcpt Portal arc not explained awry entirely by the insistence on 
submitting attendance reports daily instead of weekly. Furthermore, the 
attendance now reported has gotten to the point where the average daily 
attendance unit is so low and the average cost per attendance unit so high as 
to raise the question of the continued operation of these units. Funds for 
the rehabilitation of two of these playgrounds is included in the bond program. 
Before such funds are granted a careful study should be made to determine 
whether it would not be better to dispose of the properties. 

The question has been raised to what extent weak programs and poorly 
prepared playground directors may have been responsible for part of the decline 
in attendance* There can be no question that this must have been a factor 
during the war, when adequate personnel was a serious problem, "frith present 
salary scales and standards of preparation this should no longer be a factor. 
Consolidation would permit the supervisory staff to concentrate on the problem 
of both training and program, and to get rid of whatever weakness may have been 
allowed to creep in. 

-135- 






































Bl 


■ 









u 














C 




X 


h 















•H 







u 


Of 


X 






h 




01 


u 


■H 




1 


* 


+-" 











M 







B 


8 





eg 




o 


*J 




3 


«J 


■ 


3 




H 


a 




o 


o 






Z 

H 


u 

01 





■D 


-C 


« 


a 


















> 




c — 




u 




6 












Id 




o 




a 





a 






Q 






M 


« 


u o 


W) 


> 


(J 


O 






























« 
























u 






z 












c 


M 










o 


M 
















• 






























M 


C 








C 
C 



a 

3 


C 
3 




(J 






H 


■ 




h 


m 


o 






w 












U. 







U 




V 








a 




O 


B 




1) 










Z 








Ph 


a. 


< 




a 






a 


3 




















Q 


a 




















< 


















- 



Chapter 10 
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION OF CONSOLIDATED DEPARTMENT 

Examination of organization charts of departments in a number of cities 
where consolidations have been effectuated indicate differences based on 
various factors, such as the size of the city, historical development and the 
facilities maintained and operated. It is evident that there are many 
different possible arrangements all of which can be made to work with equal 
success, depending upon local conditions and traditions. As a general rule, 
however, the maintenance of all physical facilities has been turned over to 
the former pork superintendent. Responsibility for the operation of all 
facilities, both revenue and non-revenue, has generally been made that of the 
superintendent of recreation; though in some instances he has been allowed to 
retain merely the task of conducting the supervised activities. Except where 
recreation is and has been a bureau or division of the park department, the 
two superintendents retained equal rank under a chief executive of the con- 
solidated department to whom is given such title as General Superintendent or 
General Manager or Director. This is likewise suggested for San Francisco. 

1. N"me: The name of the Department should carry both elements to 
show the combination of parks and playgrounds. The present tendency seems to 
be to emphasize the recreational nature of the department by placing recreation 
first. That has been done in the most recent consolidations. Hence the 
department could be called the Department of Public Recreation and Parks, or 
just Recreation and Parks. Or it may be the Department of Parks and Recreation 



-136- 












' 



From the standpoint of the public interest it makes little difference. The 
important thing is the actual fact of consolidation, not the more name. It 

is important, however, that there should be no hint of supremacy of ono set of 
interests over the other. 

2. Commission: The commission may consist of seven members, of whom 
sire shall be appointed by the Mayor for overlapping terms of either four or six 
years. The seventh should be the superintendent of schools ox-officio, as h© 
is now an cx-officio member of the Recreation Commission because of the relation 
of the schools to recreation and the need for their closer coordination. He 
should have the power to designate one of his assistants or deputies to attend 
mc tin^s and act for him on such commission. The present provision of the 
charter requiring tvo members of the Recreation Commission to be women may well 
be carried over. The appointed members should be selected carefully from among 
those interested raid sympathetic to the use of public facilities for public 
recreation. They should include at least one representative of private agencies 
providing recreation for special groups, preferably from among the paid execu- 
tives, if ono can be found who can afford to devote the necessary time* 

5. Secretariat : The survey report made by the Now York Bureau of 
Municipal Research in 1916 criticized the organization of the Park Department 
whereby "the office force reports to the secretary of the board." The present 
procedure is not prod organization and is not recommended for continuance., The 
secretary should be subject to the jurisdiction of the chief executive of the 
consolidated department. lie might perhaps be given additional duties such as 
the responsibility for preparation of annual statistical and financial as well 
as special reports and the public relations of the department. That, however, 



■137- 



docs not and should not necessitate making the bookkeeping personnel accountable 
to him. 

4. General Superintendent ; The general superintendent should be 
appointed by the commission without reference to civil service. He should be 
a trained executive, rr e-f erably with a background in public recreation in the 
larger sense of the term, and sympathetic with present trends and tendencies 
in the use of recreation areas. He should also have the ability to secure the 
cooperation end command the loyalty of the personnel of the two departments 
and to resolve the conflicting views of the opposing interests which make for 
present rivalries. The salary to be set for this position should be in keeping 
with it? importance as the chief executive of a major department of the city 
and county government. It should be sufficiently adequate to attract the best 
the country affords. 

5, Divis i onal Organization ; It is suggested that five divisions bo 

set up, as follows : 

a. Administrative Division, under a Business Manager 

b. Engineering Division, under the Engineer (Landscape Design) 

c. Maintenance Division, under the Superintendent of Parks 

d. Zoo Division, under the Zoo Director 

e. Recreation Division, under the Superintendent of Recreation 

a. Admi n istrative Division : The Administrative Division will be one 
of the important divisions of the department. It should consist of two tureasiSj 
to wits (1) the Bureau of Office Administration and (2) tho Bureau cf 
Revenue s . 



-138- 



" 






(1) The Bureau of Office Administration would consist of the usual sub- 
divisions, as follows: 

(a) Personnel and payroll, timekeeping, etc. 

(B) Procurement, purchasing, contracts, supplies, etc. 

(c ) Accounting, budget, and statistics 

(d) Stenographic and miscellaneous clerical, information, telephone, etc. 

(2) The Bureau of Revenues should include most of the present Revenue or 
Recreation Division of the Park Department, with the addition of Camp Mather 
from the Recreation Department. This would mean closer oversight of the 
business operations of the consolidated department with its rcvonu-is of more 
than a million dollars annually. Omitted would be the maintenance of golf 
courses and bowling greens, which should be added to the Division of Mainten- 
ance, and supervision of the non-revenue activities, particularly the super- 
vised playgrounds and possibly the tennis courts. Supervision of these areas 
should be transferred to the Recreation Division under the Superintendent of 
Recreation, who should have control of the operation of all supervised play- 
grounds and centers in the consolidated department. 

Camp Mather would become an additional operating unit under the aegis 
of the Supervisor of Restaurants and Playgrounds. This should make possible 
a considerable economy in the operation of this camp, which is now burdened 
with a heavy overhead for year-round personnel, though it is operated for only 
three months annually, during the summer. Incidentally, it is to be hoped 
that, in the course of the reorganization, proper recognition will be given to 
the position of the Supervisor of Restaurants and Playgrounds, whoso present 
compensation, in the light of his responsibilities, and in comparison with 



-139- 



othor positions of far less importance in the two departments, and, for that 
mattor, in the city and county, appears grossly inadequate. 

b. Engineering Division ; This division, enlarged by the addition of 
the Senior Draftsman and his assistant in -the Recreation Department, should be 
divorced of its maintenance duties, and confine itself to survey, planning, 
design and inspection of construction and improvements. In suggesting the 
removal of maintenance duties, this report is merely going a step further 
than was done by the report of the survey made in 1916 by the New York Bureau 
of Municipal Research. That report recommended that the construction of roads, 
paths and boulevard pavements be placed within the jurisdiction of the Depart- 
ment of Public Works* There seems to be no good reason for not renewing this 
recommendation that such work be done by that agency in the city and county 
government best equipped therefor. A more recent (1940) suggestion of 

Mr. Francis V. Kcesling that construction work be centralized in the Department 
of Public T.orks emphasizes the Bureau* s earlier recommendation. 

In fact, the removal of the work of repairing roads and paths within 
the parks would make it possible to eliminate a situation which has caused 
complaints of inability to plan in advance certain other maintenance work 
requiring the use of the samo equipment used for repairing roads and paths. 
This is wholly regardless of the justification of these complaints, which this 
report does not attempt to determine; it merely recognizes the existence 
thereof, and the drmage to morale caused thereby. 

c. Maintenance Division, under the Superintendent of Parks ; The 
Superintendent of Parks would be responsible for all maintenance of both 
grounds and structures in both parks and playgrounds. For the time being, an' 5 



■140- 



until the development of McLaren Park requires better supervision than it now 
requires, -the organization can be along existing lines with modifications 
necessitated by the consolidation and the changes suggested above. The 
follovang subdivisions would be required: 

(1) Golden Gate Park and its parkway approaches, under the Supervisor 
of Maintenance, whose duties would include, as now, the provision 
of certain types of maintenance for the entire consolidated 
department as it now docs for Par'/: Department alone. However, 
responsibility for the Yacht Harbor, llarina Parkway and McLaren 
Park should be taken from him and transferred to the respective 
Supervisors of Grounds. 

(2) Maintenance of small parks, squares and playgrounds scattered 
throughout the city, under the Supervisors of Grounds. For this 
purpose the city should bo divided into two districts, say along 
Market Street and its prolongation; and each of the two Super- 
visors of Grounds, one now in the Park Department and the other 
in the Recreation Department, should each be placed in charge of 
one of these districts, and be responsible for the maintenance 
cf all the small parks, squares and playgrounds therein, as well 
as reporting on the need for repairs to structures and equipment. 

(3) Maintenance of Horticultural, Arboricultural and Floricultural 

Facilities: 

(a) Maintenance of Arboretum and Botanical Research 

(b) Maintenance of Nurseries 

(c) Maintenance of Conservatory 

(4) Maintenance of golf courses and bowling greens, under the Supervisor 
of Golf Course Maintenance 

(5) Maintenance of buildings, structures and equipment, under a Super- 
visor of Building and Equipment. The General Foreman Carpenter 
could have his title changed, or be reclassified if the duties 
changed in any degree from the present duties of that employee. 

d. Zco Pivision, under the Zoo Director : The Zoo Division would 
operate more or less independently, as it does now, but the director would 
receive his orders through and report directly to the General Superintendent, 
as he does now to the Superintendent of Parks. Successors to the present 
director could be chosen either by the commission or by the General Super- 
intendent, with the approval of the commission. 



-141- 



e» Recreation Division, under tho Superintendent of Recreation t 
This division would operrvte pretty much as at present, now that it is organized 
along district linos for supervision of playgrounds and centers, with the 
addition of such units in the parks and squares as are now supervised and 
others where such supervision is deemed desirable. There seems to be some 
question as to the need for separate supervision of the teen-age centers and 
tho housing units. It would appear that the supervising directors in the 
various districts could readily be responsible for such units within these 
districts. 

The advisability of tho suggested consolidation should be obvious from 
the ease with which the various parts of the two departments fit into tho frame- 
work proposed above. Generally, the merger requires only the following: 

(1) Consolidation of office staffs of the two departments 

(2) Consolidation of the engineering staffs of the two departments 

(3) Transfer of Camp Mather tc the supervision of the Supervisor 
of Restaurants and Playgrounds 

(4) Transfer of the non-revenue activities in the Park Department now 
supervised by one of the Assistant Directors of Recreation Activ- 
ities to Recreation Department supervision 

(5) Transfer of the maintenance activities of the Recreation Department 
to the Park Department and redistribution of maintenance of grounds 
between the two Supervisors of Grounds, with the maintenance of 
buildings and equipment in the playgrounds and centers added to 
that in the parks. 

This would be the immediate program, the first step in the consolida- 
tion. The other changes could come when and as the General Superintendent 
becomes more familiar with the problems of the combined departments and shall 
have been satisfied with the need and desirability thereof. Consolidation 



-142- 



of the swimming pools of the two departments could be accomplished later if 
and when a single policy for all pools is worked out and adopted. The same 
could be done for other facilities of like nature. There will always be 
individual units that will present special problems in that they require 
operation along lines other than the regular pattern works i out generally 
for most facilities. 



-143- 





O O O 


o o o 


o o 


O 


o 


o 


i-H 


O O O 


moo 


o o 


o 


o 


o 


d 


O O O 


0)00 


CM O 


o 


o 


o 


•P 


% •» « 


» % * 


* * 








+i o 


O CO o 


cr> o oo 


in oo 


o 


r-1 


o 


ti El 


m oo co 


noio 


r-{ CO 


o 


t- 


oo 



Q 


O 


o 


5 


o 


o 






09 


in 


CO 


to 


to 


to 






o o o 
o o o 

to N H 



o 


o o 


o 


o 


5] 


o <# 


o 


o 


(O 


oo O 


in 


o 



1 


oo 


fi, 


bO 


o 


fl 


H 


•H 


Q) 


■0 


> 


H 


<a 


•H 


a 


3 




PQ 



o o o 
o o o 
m oo oo 



o 


o o 


88 


o 


o o 


CO 


00 O 


c- o 


•. 




% * 


o 


CO ^ 

oo «* 


<# co 


01 


r-l CO 


<* 


oo 


•* 



O 


o o 


o 


O 


o o 


o 


o 


o o 


GO 




•t * 


» 


in 


oo m 


m 


o> 


C7> CM 

OO to 


«* 



a 




Ph 


1 


* 




g 


H 


lz 


G 


K 

o 


o 

H 


g 




EH 


H 


P 


I 


g 


H 


1 



E-f 

O Q >-■ 

JBfQ 
H PS 



-p 


m 


o o 


o 


0) 


13 


o o 


o 


O 




05 CD 


H 


o 




* * 






O 


00 CO 


o 


xi 


b 


CO 


H 


o 


a 






-p 




<©= 







B 




-P 




a 


o 


o 


3 


i 


H 


y 1 



o o 
o o 
o in 



t-< O 

o o 

oj O 



W) O 



O O 
O O 

in o 



o o o o o 
o o o o o 
O in in <h o 



o o o o o 
o o o o o 
in in oo o co 



o o 
o o 

00 vl< 



A. CONTROLLED AND IN D 



APPENDIX I 
ACQU1 ITION, AREA, VALUE AMD ESTIMATED COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND IMFROVEMEtfl 
OF PROPERTIES CONTROLLED AND IN USE, FULLY ACQUIRED BUT UNDEVELOPED, 
CN PROCESS OF ACQUISITION AND PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION BY THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT 





Acquired 


Area in 


Acres 


Appraised Value 




Est in? 


vted Costs of Development and Improvement 


Name 


;e 

!8 




How 
Purchase 


Present 


Add»l 


Land 
$ 121,200 


Improvements Land 


Grounds 
$ 32,900 


Buildings 
$ 16,500 


Equipment 
$ 600 


Total 


1. Apt os 


4.64 




$- 50,000 


2. Argonne 


15 




School lease 


.83 




37,500 


$ 1,000 






6,600 


16,200 


200 


23,000 


3. Bayview 


!2- 


23 


Purchase 


3.43 




67,000 


500 






10,100 


48,800 


1,100 


60,000 


4. Bernal 


52 




School lease 


.99 




21,500 
















5. Cabrillo 


51 




School lease 
Purchase 


.83 

.07 




25,000 
2,500 


) 

) 12,500 














6. Camp father 


54 




Hetch Hetchy 


200.00 






25,000 






131,800 


490,800 


17,350 


639,950 


7. Central Corp. Yard 






School lease 


.46 




15,000 










86,800 


3,200 


90,000 


8. Chinese 


55- 


26 


Purchase 


.59 


.70 


64,300 


2,500 


$ 150, 


960 




244,000 


13,040 


408,000 


9. Clement T.C. 


.2 




School lease 


.83 




36,000 


5,000 














10. Corona Heights 


,6- 


40 


Purchase 


16.88 




27,300 




Playgr 


ound 


(3.2 acres) 


14,700 


500 


15,200 


















Junior 


Museum 131,000 


466,000 


25,000 


622,000 


11. Crocker Amazon 


A 




Hetch Hetchy 


42.00 




150,000 


120,000 














12. Crowley 


)4- 


10 


Purchase 


6.35 


Indef. 


440,000 


1,500 


100, 


000 


65,000 


325,000 


10,000 


500,000 


13. Douglcss 


!3- 


30 


Purchase 


10.03 




44,000 


6,500 














14. Drama Workshop 


11 




Library 


.09 




3,750 


3,400 














15. Excelsior 


.1 




Purchase 


1.60 




28,000 


2,000 






71,000 






71,000 


16. Folsom 


:4 




Purchase 


.79 




43,500 


2,500 






20,000 






20.000 


17. Fulton 


57 




School lease 


.83 




25,000 


12,500 














18. Funstcn 


!2 




Parks 


12.70 




691,000 


24,200 














19. Gilman 


»3 




Purchase 


6.90 




7,500 


5,000 














20. Glen lark 


15- 


•26 


Purchase 


7.82 




33,000 


112,800 


(Incl. 


Pool) 


33,000 


95,000 


5,000 


133,000 


21. Hamilton 


11. 


•28 


Parks 


5.64 




368,600 


2,200 


(Incl. 


Pool) 


69,000 


292,000 


8,000 


369,000 


22. Hayes Vnlloy 


4 




Purchase 


.19 


Indef. 


10,000 


15,000 


30, 


000 


(Incl. Pool) 


325,000 


10,000 


365,000 


23. Hayward-Boys 


1° 


) 
























24. Hayward-Girls 


N 


) 


Parks 


5.34 




465,600 


7,200 






89,200 


45,800 


4,000 


139,000 


25. Jackson 


.9 




Parks 


4.41 




192,000 


5,400 















o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


r~i 


o 


o 



o o o 


o o o 


o o c o 


o o 


o o o 


o o o 


o o o o 




o o o 


O o o 


cm o o o 


O ' 




* * •» 


% « * « 


* «v 


rH 05 >* 


•^ O <M 


(o in oon 


i;< o 


CO CM -^ 


to o in 


C- CO CM CM 


cm to 


rH 


NHU) 


i-H 


CM CO 



o 

w o 



o o o 
o o o 

tD st< CO 



o o o 

o o o 

r-l O O 



O O O O 

o oo n to 



o 


PL, O 


o 


o 


<# 


UO) 




S3 •» 


CO 


•H LO 


1-1 


E ° 




g CM 



o o o 
o o o 
«# to to 



o o o 
o o o 
o o o 



f, til 
3 

' J O I 



o o 


o 


o o 


o 


to r-\ 


r-l O 



■a 
9i 



o -g 

C -3 
O CO 



o o 


o 


o 


o o 


o o 


o 


o 


o o 


o o 


o 


o 


o o 



'J j O CM 



o o o o 

o o o o 

CO o o o 

CO to rH rH 



O O O O 

o o o o 
c, <o «# If J 



o o o 

O O O 

o o m 



_\j_._'_' ' N I "^E - (Cont'd) 

Acquired 






Dito 



How 



Area in Asrr.e 

Present Add'l 














~~— "■" 






Junior y.useum 


1918 




School lease 


2.25 


. 


v Julius) 


IP :2 




Federal lease 


6.03 


28. 


Levi Strauss 


19 J7 




Private lease 


.25 


29. 


' Lchelangelo 


19:8 




School lease 


.43 


S0« 


Hiss ion 


194 




School lease 


.83 






194 




Purchase 


.99 


51. 


Murphy (J. P.) 


193 




School lease 


.74 






19 


5 




Purchase 


.48 


52. 


Soe Valley T. C. 


19 


2 




School le ase 


.92 


33. 


Berth Beach 


19 


7- 


■8 


Purchase 


2.52 


C -. 


worth 3each Annex 


194 




Private lease 


.48 


35. 


Ocean View 


19 


5- 


■31 


Purchase 


10.28 


35. 


Phelan Beach 


19 


4 




State permit 


6.04 


37. 


Portola 


194- 


•31 


Purchase 


4.96 


58. 


Potrero Hill 


197- 


•31 


Purchase 


9.54 


39. 


Presidio Heights 


190 




School lease 


.43 


to. 


Richmond No. 1 


iq 


4 




Aband. trust 


.83 


■11. 


Richmond T. C. 


L9 


9 




School lease 


.83 


42. 


Rocharabeau 


19 







School lease 


.83 


43. 


Rolph, James Jr. 


19 


7- 


■19 


Purchase 


3.08 


44. 


Rossi, A* J. 


19 
19 


3- 
5 


•34 


Purchase 

Public Works 


6.24 ) 
.29 ) 


45. 


Souths ide Center 


19 


2 




School lease 


1.15 


46. 


Stern Grcve 


19 
19 


1- 
2 


•34 


Donated ) 
School lease ) 








19 


8- 


•41 


Purchase ) 


33.15 


47. 


Sunset 


19 


7 




Purchase 


3.31 


48. 


Visitacion Valley 


19 


1 




Purchase 


1.78 


<-9. 


West Portal 


197 




Peaks Tunnel 


1.89 


r' . 


Helen TTills 


199 




School lease ) 








19 


9 




Purchase ) 


.87 



.05 



,55 



,30 



High* Lighting (20 
Tctal in Use 



jlygrounds, including S t. Mary 's) 
435.66 



Apprc 
Land 

$ 16,900 

20,600 
28,800 
26,000 

16,000 

12,700 

20,100 

165,000 

13 5,000 

160,000 
65,000 
62,500 
37,800 
37,500 

37,500 

36,000 

107,800 

283,300 

100,500 



173,400 
50,000 
23,500 
37 ,500 

85,000 



tised Vai'iv Estimated Scsts of D^TelojvrasTjft ar, 

Improvements Land Gr ound s Buildings 



$ 10,000 
2,000 

5,000 

19,000 $ 15,000 



To be placed on Corona Heights 
$ 16,400 $ 600 



(Incl. Swimming Pool) 

205,900 9,100 



5,000 
21,000 (Inc. 

14,600 (Incl. Pool) | 24,000 



48,300 
6,000 
1,000 
1,000 



9,000 
7,600 

6,400 

1,500 



2,000 

2,000 

500 



1,000 



50,000 

Swimming Pool 

55,000 



42,500 
11,250 



40,000 



839,000 



178,900 

95,000 

465,000 



30,700 

179,200 

16,450 

21,700 

178,900 



5,100 

5,000 

32,000 



3,000 

5,800 

300 

300 

5,100 



ent 



$ 17,000 



230, 300 





24,340 


660 


25,000 


>ool) 


232,800 


8,200 


241,000 


24,000 


274,200 


10,800 


309,300 


94,400 


88,300 


7,300 


290,000 




175,400 


5,600 


181,000 


12,300 


16,300 


400 


29,300 


27,100 


16,300 


600 


44,000 



234,000 
100,000 
552,000 



76,200 

185,000 

28,003 

22,000 

224,000 

839,030 



$4,657,650 $529,600 0385,960 $1,865,150 $4,682,390 #197,850 $7,131,550 







o 


73 


1 


a 


■ H 




3 


p 


rr 


a 


W 



8(0000 
** o m o 

OfflOdiO 

C~ CV! O CSJ Oi 

NtO N O) IO 

i-i h n io 



o to 

§3 



o o o 


to 


o o o 


** 


(D (O O 


C-- 




* 


m o 


1* 


rH 


CJ 




4» 



o to o o o o o 

lo r}< O O O O O 

O to O O O O O 

03 C- CO t- O U5 «J< 

(O W O ^ <R N O) 

« H ^ N ^ H H 



o o o o o o o 
m in o o o o o 
O co rH a> o b- O 



OOOOOOOCOO 
OOOOOOOtOO 

oooooomoo 

[»NinHO)NtO^IO 

aitococ-c-o>a>oo 

CJ CJ to i-l C\J *P CM 



CO 


O 




to 


c- 




in 


to 




* 


* 




to 


CO 




o 


to 




rH 


00 




* 


+ 




N 


CM 
i-l 





o o o o o 
o o o o 



O CO o 

WV->^V^V->V^O tOO 

m m to oo co o o c^o 

CJ 00 C- to 
tO rH 



co 


* 




to 


to 




to 


co 




« 






to 


a> 




to 


rH 

to 





S> X) 



o o o _ 
o m o o 
in cm as 



o o 


O 


o o 


in 


*»< m 


m 


* •> 


% 


in to 


rH 


c- in 


CO 


rH tO 


00 




«3= i 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o m 
c- o ^p to ^ to cm 



ooooooooo 
ooooooooo 
inorHcncftincooo 

toiotot-t-Nom^ 



o 


o 




o 


Qi 




c~ 


oa 




« 






to 


rH 




00 


Ol 




to 


co 
CO 





W CO 


o 


o o o 


o 


o 


O TJ 


o 


o in o 


UT> 


o 


o g 


to 


rH rH in 


OS 


m 



C- CO C- rH m 
O •* 01 rH C- 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o m 
CO rH in co to c- c- 



oooooooo 
oooooooo 
mcMtototomt~to 





M 




-P 




f! 


o 


E 


3 


p 




S 


d 


p 


> 


b 




!i 


T3 


& 


© 


'--: 


[0 


H 



o to o o o o o 
O Cft o o o o o 
O to o o o o o 







■P 




c3 






rt 











o 




o 


T? 


hO 


H 




■rl 


Q 


3 


a, 


J-. 


-P 


-P 


•H 


o 


O 


erf 


fl 


Xi 


i-! 


=H 


CD 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 
m to o o o o o 



-* ACQUIRED BUTfoDEVELOPED 





Acqu 


tired 


Area in Acres 


Appr aised Value 


Estimate.: Costs of Developm; 


3nt and Improvement 




None ate 


Ho-w 


Present Add»l 


Land 


Improvements 


Land 


Grounds 


Buildings 


Equipment 


Total 


51. 


Burnett 936-42 


Purchase 


1.83 




39,400 






$ 85,300 


§ 295,000 


$ 7,700 


$ 388,000 


52. 


Cayuga 944 


Purch.& Streets 2.77 


) 




Improvements 
















.29 acres Pb. 


?fks .29 


) 


15,000 






107,100 


19,500 


400 


127,000 


53. 


Longfellow 936-39 


Purchase 


1.68 




24,000 


not yet 




46,150 


16,250 


446 


62,846 


54. 


ISiraloma 944-46 


Purchase 


2.50 




32,500 






97,500 


21,900 


600 


120,000 


55. 


Saint Mary«s 928-39 


Purchase 


13.96 




80,000 


demolished 




211,950 


175,400 


5,600 


392,950 


56. 


West Sunset 945-47 


Purchase 


8.68 




95,000 


rented 




175, 500 


353,500 


10,000 


539,000 




Total Fully Acqied 




31.71 




$285,900 






$723,500 


$881,550 


$24,746 


$1,629,796 




III PROCESS OF ACQUTION 










pending 












C. 


























development 












57. 


Eureka Valley 935 


Purchase 


1.26 


.65 


40,400 


! 


| 65,000 


103,300 


191,700 


8,050 


368,050 


58. 


Grattan 936 


Purchase 


1.24 


.29 


34,800 


for 


25,693 


85,100 


26,000 


850 


137,643 


59. 


Merced 945 


Lease purchase 


3.08 


4.70 


23,500 




48,000 


175,500 


177,400 


5,100 


406,000 


60. 


Silver Terrace 942 


Purchase 


3.56 


2.04 


21,500 


recreational 40,000 


183,800 


20,300 


2,900 


247,000 


61. 


Upper Noe Valley 936 


Purchase 


1.54 


1.38 


46,800 




150,000 


141,600 


190,400 


8,000 


490,000 


62. 


Laurel Hill 947 


Lease purchase 




1.42 




use 


62,000 


45,700 


16,600 


700 


125,000 


63. 


Pine lake 945 
Total In Procesif Acqui 

PROPOSED FOR ACQUIT I ON 


Condemned 
sion 




26.60 
37.08 




i 


40,000 
^430,693 


67,750 
$802,750 


81,250 
0703,650 


5,000 
$30,600 


194,000 




10.68 


^167,000 


$1,967,693 


D. 


















64. 


Byxbee 


Purchase 




2.76 






144, 500 


135,500 


16,500 


500 


297,000 


65. 


Calvary 


Purchase 




2.10 






147,300 


68,200 


16,000 


500 


232,000 


66. 


Miley 


Purchase 




.21 






8,000 


13,600 


13,100 


300 


35,000 


67. 


North Sunset 


Pur chase 




3.31 






245,000 


107,300 


17,900 


800 


371,000 


68. 


South Sunset 


Purchase 




3.31 






85,000 


75,300 


17,900 


800 


179,000 


69. 


Sea Cliff (c Beach 


Purchase 




1.15 






25,000 


32,500 


32,500 


2,000 


92,000 


70. 


Glen I ark Day Cann; 


Purchase 




87.14 






195,000 


19,700 


70,800 


8,000 


293,500 


71. 


Children's MountaCamp 


Hetchy lease 




160.00 








91,300 


275,000 


37,738 


404,038 


72. 


Contrf.l Activi.tiesl.d6* Purchase 
ND TOTiL CONTROLLFJ PROPOSED 










20,000 




164,000 
623,700 


16,000 
66,638 


200,000 






259.98 






869,500 


543,400 


2,103,538 


GRA 


478.05 


299.06 


$5,110,550 


$529,600 $1 


,686,453 


$3, 934,800 


$6,891,290 


3.319,834 


$12,832,377 



APPENDIX II 
ACQUISITION, AREA AND APPRAISED VALUES OF 
SMALL PARKS AND SQUARES 
UNDER CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF PARK DEPARTMENT 



Name of 




Acquisition 


Area in 


Appraised Value 


Park or Square 


Date 


Manner 


Acres 


Land 


Improvements 


Alamo Square 


1867- 


•68 


Van Ness Ord. 


12,70 


1,382,600 






Alta Plaza 


1867- 


•68 


Van Ness Ord. 


11.89 


1,554,000 






Aquatic Park 


1923- 


.29 


Purch. & Trade 


30.94 


807,800 


A 


450,000 


Mooring Dock 














28,000 


Balboa Park 


1908 




Trans. Old Jail 


31.06 


265,000 






Bay-view Park 


1915 




Old Det. Home 


30.00 


15,000 






Bernal Square 


1870 




Donated 


2.10 


45,700 






Buena Vista Park 


1867- 


•68 


Outside Lands 


36.00 


126,000 






Civic Center 








5.86 


1,276,000 






Columbia Square 


1861 




Pueblo Land 


2.53 


165,000 






Co so Square 








.25 








Duboce Square 


1900 




Purchase 


4.21 


275,300 






Fairmont Plaza 


1870 




Gift 


.62 


1,500 






Franklin Square 


1867- 


•68 


Van Ness Ord. 


4.41 


288,000 






Garfield Square 


1881 




Outside Lands 


2.92 


95,500 






Grand View Park 


1923 




Conveyed to city 


1.10 


5,500 






Holly Park Circle 


1870 




Donated 


7.50 


37,500 






Huntington Square 


1915 




Gift 


1.07 


286,800 






Ina f 


n r\tr* 




m_ __ -.<»_ — 


At 


ti ann 






Jeff 
















Laff 
















La 
















Mr 
¥ 
7 



















CO Cj : "* 


1-3 t-3 CO 




c+ g ? 


^ cd £ 




p P '•• 


P- r-> cr 


►9 


d- 8 :> 
£ 1 !* 


P CD ••$ 


o 


OT O 


c+ 


(0 (5 ! 


TJ »* 


P 


P->f>3 


CD P W 


M 


O 1 


PTJ O 




»i) "-*§ 


X & H- 




« O !> 


co era 




OOP'J 


a & 




HP O 4 


H- ct- 




S *f to ij 

3 3 ct! 






TS CD P c 






p «• p ' 






ca — » cr < 





M d- 
ffi P* 
cr 
TJ 

W P 

CD ►< 
H- tV 

n 



CO CO 03 

i-» ro co 
co £» OJ 



o P 
-s i 
d- S*T 

GO CO 

3 H- 
O p- 
P CD 
d" 

p* co 

CO p 

^S 
p o 

CD 



K S 



o p 



B H- O B 



H- P 



a p cd 
P *<! 
<1 TJ 

H- P CO 

P. TtQ 

oi ?r p 

O P 

p i 

CD 



TJ CD 
P 






1-J M H- 1 I- 1 

CB CO CO CO 

cn cn ro co 

tf* -j -<j ~3 

I t I 

cn to 

co co 



x> 03 co co 

ro cn cn co 

£> -o ^3 cn 

I t I 

VI Ol Cn 

ro co co 



►1 d-d-4 ctl d- 



CD 



o o. 

p p pj S3 

CO OT O CD Cn 
CD 4 O CD 

cd p f 

l-b p 



61 H- 



Cb 




p. 



-3 




M H> 




i- 1 


ro 


OJ H" 


O 


t 


CO tf* CO £• 


H-" 


CO OJ 


O 


if* tP» cn -J cn 










• • 




• • • « • 


cn 


MO h 


> co cn cn co co 


03 ro 


cn cn 


O 


cn h cn oi o> 


m 


w cn c 


> (D MO) SI -J 


ro co 


CO OJ 


O 


H(D«J>3H 



p CD 

P H> 

<<! CD 

CD ►* 

d" CO 

d- O 

cd a 

CO CO 

P P 

p p 

CD CD 



h ta tn 
p p o 

Q P I-" 

d- M 

O H-«! 

P 



Sp 



£ 2? ° 

P o 

CD CD 



h-> M M t- 1 M 

CO 03 CO CO CO 

Cft CD Cd H SI 

-si -si m cn o 
I i 

cn cn 

03 CO 



H> O 
H> P 
d- P 

CT 



< < HJ 

BBg 

Si Si ca 

CD CD H> 
CO t» CD 
ta ra 4 

o o 
p- p> 



k^ 0> rf=>. O cn 
co ^ w -a o 



•^ p ^ p c 
p H p h- cr 
o 



H- ?T 



<^ (-» H- 

H- P- P 

CD 

^ CO CO 

tj P" i= 

p p p 

ill 

iT" <D CD 



_ CD 

CT CO 

►t) p 

h- 1 P 

p »< 

N CD 

P 



l-J H-« !-■ (-> »-• 

co co co co co 

ro co as -J O 

oa h" -a O O 

o> 



O <i 

CTP 

CO 

H- S 
fi- CD 



P. 



&3» 

HI, HJ 
CT O 

P' 
P 
CO 



f 

cr p 

O p 

P< 

Q 01 



4 



i-» co tp* cn ^^ 

OMHNH 



O O 
O O 
O O 



H V-> 


H CO 


!-• 


OO 


H* CO I- 1 l-» 


cn cn co 


co ro 


o) co o> ro tfs 


w cn 


cn -si 


OJ 


o to tp> co ro 


OHMfflM 


CO 03 -3 


o cn o #» -3 


ct> ro 


O CO 


cn 


co -3 co o cn 


O if> -3 O -3 


cn cn oo i- 1 cn 




1* % 


-* «■ 




>• V >• <• V 


«• % % w <• 


*»%%%% 


o o O W CO 


o a> 


o o 


o 


I- 1 tf=> cn o O 


o iP> co co cn 


cn cn O cn VI 


o o o o o 


o o 


o o 


o 


o o o o o 


o o o o o 


O O O O O 


o o o o o 


o o 


o o 


o 


o o o o o 


o o o o o 


o o o o o 



OOOffltJ) 

O O H> P CD 

0) H <j CD 1 

O P H- 3 p 

& O p> p 
CO O" !-• 

p p CD H- CO 

►j CO ct- cr p 

CD t£> CD p p 

.g 1 ■ fl 

P ►Tj CD 

i-j p 

CD h 



co co 
cn -3 

-3 O 



9 

ca p 
H- d- 
P- CD 
CD p. 



ro cn cn co 



ro cn oo O m 
cn w cn o o 



D3 CO £-• fr> !> 


TJ 




p P U3 h-> h-< 


P 




=<!(-■ P d- P 


•-1 




<! a" g p p 3 


W 


Si 


H» O O cr O 






CD p O H- TJ 


O 


^ 


^ »< O I- 1 CO 


1 


CD 


TJ H # 5" «2 
TJ P P TJ N p 


CO 


o 


5 & OT ^ p % 


^3 


i-b 


W dK 1 CD 


P 




O 


H 






HNH 


ro 


oo cn CO 


cn ^3 co ►?>. 


}-> cn 


O cn co 


cn cn cn oi 


cn cn 


-SI rfi CO 


% <• % «■ 


« <• 


«* V % 


o o o -^ 


o o 


03 O Ol 


o o o o 


o o 


o o o 


o o o o 


o o 


o o o 



(p» 

ro cn 
oo O 

«. % 

o o 
o o 
o o 



P.& 

p 

TJ p. 

9 ^ 
<1 p 

CD H 1 

cr 



APPENDIX III 

DETAILED LIST OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 

RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S PROGRAM OF EXPANS ION AND IMPROVEMENT 

A. Recreation Centers 

Large centers -which include gymnasia, handcraft rooms, clubroom3, 
kitchen and sanitary facilities. 



1. 


St. Mary* a 


2. 


Ocean View 


3. 


Potrero 


4. 


Burnett 


5. 


Sunset 


6. 


Upper Noe 


7. 


Eureka Valley 


8. 


Hayes Valley 


9. 


West Sunset 


10. 


Merced 



11. 


Chinese Rec. Center 


12. 


Hamilton 


13. 


Mission 


14. 


North Beach 


15. 


James Rolph 


16. 


Helen 7,'ills 


17. 


Father Crowley 


10. 


South Sunset 


19. 


North Sunset 



B. Recreation Clubhouses 



Buildings with handcraft rooms, clubrooms, kitchen and sanitary facilities, 
but without gymnasia. 

1. Wawona (for bowling) 

2. Longfellow 

3. Murphy 

4. Grattan 

5. Silver Terrace 

6. Cayuga 

7. Miraloma 

8. Miley 

9. Bixby 
10. 15th Street 



11. 


Presidio Heights 


12. 


Richmond 


13. 


Bay View 


14. 


Apt os 


15. 


Argonne 


16. 


West Portal 


17. 


Julius Kahn 


18. 


Visitacion Valley 


19. 


Calvary 


20. 


Lfurell 



C. Swimming Pools 



All pools to be indoors and equipped with modern mechanical equipment. 
(Items 6, 0, 9 and 10 - pool to be constructed by either Board of Education 
or Recreation Department.) 



1. 

2. 

3. 
4. 



Mission 
North Beach 
Hamilton 

Hayes Valley 
Glen Park 



6. Funston (Marina Jr. High) 

7. Rossi 

8. Portola (Portola Jr. High) 

9. Ocean View (Denman Jr. High) 
10. Lest Sunset (Sunset Jr. High) 



D. Bleachers - Athletic Grandstands 



1. St. Hary»s 

2. Rossi 

3. Silver Terrace 

4. West Sunset 



5. 
6. 
7. 



Merced 

M. S. Hayward 

Father Crowley 



-148- 



APPENDIX III (Cont'd) 
E. Lighted Playgrounds 
Outdoor lighting for athletic fields and courts. 



1. 


M. S. Hayward 


2. 


Jackson 


3. 


Bay View 


4. 


Glen Park 


5. 


Portola 


6. 


Rossi 


7. 


Apt os 


0. 


Ho Ion "Jills 


9. 


St. Mary's 


10. 


Visitacion Valley 



11. 


Douglass 


12. 


Hoe Valley Tennis Courts 


13. 


Oilman 


1-1. 


Sigmund Stern Grove 


15. 


Sunset 


16. 


Michelangelo 


17. 


Bernal 


18. 


J. P. Murphy 


19. 


Potrero Hill 


20. 


Ocean View 



F. Specialized Projects 

1. Rossi - District Playground Building, city-wide Drama Center. 

2. Phclan Be'-ch - two safe ocean swimming beaches, with adequate 

fr cilities. Ocean TTater Sports Center. 

3. Pine Lake - Picnic and camp sito (youth) 

4. Children's day camp 

5. Children's mountain camp 

6. Sea Cliff - safe ocean swimming beach 

7. Enlargement of mountain camp 

8. Central activities building 

9. Corporation Yard 

10. Junior Museum, Youth Handcraft Center 

G. Rehabilitation of Play Areas 
Improvement of facilities on playgrounds now operating. 



1. Sigmund Stern Grove stage 

& locker 

2. Glen Park 

3. Presidio Heights 

4. Folsom 

5. Hamilton 

6. Excelsior 



7. Bernal Heights 

8. Richmond 

9. M. S. Hayward 

10. Bay View 

11. Apt os 

12. Visitacion 

13. Ocean View 



H. Development of Playficlds 
Completely new ground development at locations not operating at present. 



1. 


St. Mary's 


2. 


Longfellow 


3. 


Burnett 


4. 


Grattan 


5. 


Upper Noe 


6. 


Eureka Valley 


7. 


Silver Terrace 


0. 


West Sunset 


9. 


Merced 



10. 


Cayuga 


11. 


Calvary 


12. 


Laurel 


13. 


South Sunset 


14. 


North Sunset 


15. 


Corona Heights 


16. 


Miraloma 


17. 


Miley 


18. 


Bixby 



-149- 



NN HU 



-p <? 


H (O CO 


t* 


O 1 


h in co 


ro 


hDI>- 


« •> »1 


•i 


t! -? 


<J> •& m 


t> 


3 en 


00 o t- 


•* 


PQ r-\ 


O CM CM 


r-t 



rH CM C- CO 

CO rH CT> 0> 

(O tO ID (O 

CO to 



t~ 


o to 


tH <M 


•p ^ 


CM CT> 


r-- CO 


1 


CO 00 


r-( LO 


hOcO 




•» % 


tJ «# 


to e'- 


CO LO 


3 o 


en t> 


«# CO 


CQ rH 


cn i-h 


CM rH 



W N O H 

CO to U5 ^ 

t- t- to CO 

to o cm o 

co m to to 

CM CM 



rH O CO CM 
CO CO CM tO 
CM CM lO CO 



C^ rH rH l-H 



lO O O 00 

rH CO CO O 

C- N O t- 

Cl lO lO >■? 

CM CM 



CO CO ^ lO 
CM rH -e< O 

t>- 00 C75 CO 



oi ffi co <' 


O 


riONC- 


to 


O) N to O) 


^M 




«s 


o m rH CO 


^ 


<Ji C- r)< in 


CO 


rH rH 






«* 



to ^H CO O 
CO CO O rH 
O m CT> CM 



CO CO CO CO 

co o to ^ 

t~ CM CO rH 



H 



APPENDIX IV 
EXPENDITURES OF PARK DEPARTMENT 
FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1931, 1936 AND 1941 - 1946 
AND BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS 1947 AND 1948 





1930-31 


1955-36 


1940-41 


1941-42 


1942-43 


1943-44 


1944-45 


1945-46 


Budget 
1946-47 


Budget 
1947-48 


Personal Services: 
General Division 
Commissr.ry Division 
Recreation Division 
San Francisco Zoo 


$445,243 
74,753 

126,059 

44,661 


$517,751 

75,959 

130,151 

43,795 


$595,465 

78,051 

149,238 

63,522 


0687,740 

87,787 

152,052 

72,602 


0661,059 

88,443 

133,333 

79,074 


0706,033 

111,584 

144,903 

88,210 


0729,728 

118,818 

155,944 

96,875 


0794,261 
132,280 
179,528 
104,862 


0993,820 
177,893 
243,171 
125,532 


01,089,112 
204,562 
275,281 
147,875 


Total 


§691,516 


$767,656 


$886,276 


01,000,181 


0961,909 


01,050,730 


01,101,365 


01,210,931 


01,540,416 


01,716,830 


General Operating: 
General Division 


183,438 


146,597 


142,917 


160,093 


173,657 


175,786 


190,919 


209,715 


283,785 


338,104 


Commissary Division 


133,100 


110,044 


105,215 


129,744 


131,076 


160,208 


175,209 


215,287 


290,732 


364,210 


Recreation Division 


48,100 


31,391 


40,250 


37,255 


36,631 


38,833 


41,328 


45,980 


52,650 


69,701 


San Frnr cisco Zoo 


33,517 


29,133 


33,371 


40,532 


46,944 


48,148 


56,974 


54,708 


60,841 


69,631 


Total 


$398,155 


$317,165 


$321,753 


0367,624 


0388,308 


0422,975 


0464,430 


0525,690 


0688,008 


0841,646 


Equipment 


30,589 


9,846 


16,200 


17,678 


19,580 


16,966 


12,749 


23,042 


36,385 


82,607 


Capital Outlay 


631,326 


156,509 


229,402 


322,021 


237,590 


155,379 


173,846 


172,642 


606,025 


433,775 


Grand Total 


,751,586 


01,251,176 


01,453,631 


01,707,504 


01,607,387 


01,646,050 


01,757,390 


01,932,305 


02,870,834 


03,079,858 







co 


CD 00 O ^ CO 


rH 


in o o o o 


in 


o 


o 


CD 








$? 


in ffl oi w (O 


O- 


en >* «4< m oi 


rH 


o 


o 


CO 








o O «D CO o 


C- 


o c- co co m 


O- 


rH 


CD 


rH 








hDC- 
CQ r-t 


* * * * * 

tOOi rl O) N 


to 


« * % * « 

t-- in cm •* to 


to 


t- 


Oi 


•* 








co in Oi <* 


co 


cm •* 

CM 


CO 
CM 




Oi 


O 

to 

m 

rH 






















<& 








o 


CM H CO CM «^ 


o- 


i O O O t- 


CD 


O 


O 


to 








43 "tf 
© 1 

&QCO 
n3 <* 
J3 Oi 

co. i-h 


t> "* (M tO tO 


O 


i., h in in ^ 


in 


rH 


Oi 


CD 








WO 0)(ON 


CO 


r-l CO CO CD O 


to 


CO 


o 


CO 








* I • •» * «s 

to c- i-i <t> o 


CM 


* % % * * 

CD rH CM «tf 


CM 


•tf 


c- 


CD 








H ^ CO v? 


Oi 

co 


00 rH tO 

rH 


CM 


CM 


CM 
CM 


CO 

to 






















rH 








to 


CM CM CO r-t C- 


CO 


Oi O Oi Oi o 


■* 


CM 


<# 


CO 








1 


rH Gi C- Ci O 




CO o co to o 


C- 


in 


rH 


CO 








CM in (O O N 


CO 


in t> «# C- rH 


CD 


c> 


to 


in 








in 


•v »v * » P 




»»*•>» 


Wk 














«* 


(O lOO C*H 


CO 


^HWMO 


CM 


c~ 


CM 


rH 








Oi 
rH 


o> to c- to 
in 


to 
tv 


CD rH tO 
rH 


rH 
CM 

=09= 




C- 


to 
o 

<H 








w 


io o ro a o 


^ 


CM rH CD rH rH 


rH 


«* 


to 


CM 








^n 


■^ O) <i Ol « 


o 


co cm m in co 


0i 


CTJ 


O 


CD 








1 


N H t- Q N 


<H 


Ci 00 O O 00 


«* 


o 


<< 








3 


« n «k « * 

rl C- Ol N U 


Oi 


* * % % * 


o 




CO 


to 




to 




Oi 


CO CM "? CM 


CO 


in rH CM 


o 




c- 


in 




<* 

Oi 




l-H 


in 


CD 


rH 


CM 

=6* 






Gi 




rH 




















1 




^ 

>* 


Ci in cm -i* 


o 


^.H CO rH O 


to 


t> 


t~ 


C- 




is; ^ 


00 


O CM CD «* 

oo m o co 


**• 

CM 


CO rH Oi CD 
t> O CM CC 


in 




in 


rH 
O 




g rH 


rH 


to 


* * * •» 

CM CO O O 
O CM CM 


CM 

in 


* •, ♦, % 
CO CD rH ^ 
^ CM 


rH 
CO 


co 


Oi 


CM 

in 




^ e 

Ph »4 


I 


rH 


in 


in 


rH 


rH 








H 


















O CD 

co 

O rH 


<* 
CD 


to 


1 o to 

D> Oi 

o to 


1 " 


1 !? S 

| CM Oi 


I CO 
I -1 
CM 


II 1 


CO 

O 


II 


! 



APPENDIX V 
EXPENDITURES OF RECREATION DEPARTMENT 
FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1931, 1936 AND 1941 ~ 1946 
BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS 1947 AND 1948 





















Budget 


Budget 




1930-31 


1935-36 


1940-41 


1941-42 


1942-43 


1943-44 


1944-45 


1945-46 


1946-47 


1947-48 


Personal Services: 






















General Division 


0262^666 


§327,421 


0421,335 


0454,383 


0444,779 


0502,809 


$561,246 


$593,212 


$713,272 


$788,056 


Teen Age Centers 












8,525 


27,190 


36,592 


47,041 


52,068 


Hunters Point 












20,062 


49,749 


70,676 


81,928 


91,697 


School Centers 














2,999 


7,091 


9,632 


9,884 


Camp Mather 


10,720 
0273,386 


14,397 
0341,818 


22,081 
A443,416 


21,429 
§475,812 


17,393 
0462,172 


20, 844 


28,220 
$669,404 


31,277 

0738,848 


40,734 
$892,607 


42,066 


Total 


$552,240 


$983,771 


General Operating: 






















General Division 


116,525 


99,185 


134,864 


139,424 


128,243 


146,784 


154,982 


164,569 


186, ir 


227,095 


Teen Age Centers 












9,018 


14,821 


11,777 


11,610 


5,740 


Hunters Point 












1,291 


3,056 


3,489 


2,850 


2,640 


School Centers 














1,751 


2,739 


4,650 


4,650 


Camp Mather 


20,829 


25,120 


29,940 


27,741 


22,975 


24,660 


25,881 


30,100 


37,047 


43,590 


Total 


$137,354 


$124,305 


$164,804 


$167,165 


$151,218 


$181,753 


$200,491 


$212,674 


$242,356 


$283,715 


Equipment 


20,141 


5,485 


10,051 


6,846 


4,598 


8,477 


7,094 


7,752 


24,810 


7,100 


Capital Outlay 


347,717 


157,600 


55,146 


68,440 


24,708 


9,547 


76,473 


72,314 


227,090 


99,600 


Grand Total 


$778,598 


$629,208 


$673,417 


$718,263 


$642,696 


$752,017 


$953,462 


$1,031,588 $1,386,863 


$1,374,186 



H 



«o 




















„ 






(1) 


CO 


o o 


c 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


-p 


«* 


o o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


d 


; 


O oj 


o 


o 


o 


o 


^ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CD 






•» * 






















•H 


«*J) 


CD Cf> 


1-1 


^H 


co 


-h 


>-l 


CO 


CO 


o 


HH 


rH 


-P 


CD 


00 rH 


CM 


CM 


m 


rH 




CT> 


in 


H 


H 


CO 


W 


H 




rH 










r-t 


•^ 






en 


w 




«* 




















=€3= 



o m t> in 

co i> c- N 



OOOOOOOOOOO 

oooooooocoo 

OOOOOOLDOOO^ 

rH O CM O << 



o o o o 
o o o o 

O CO CO CM 



COl 

IC I 

^1 



LOD-rOOffiHCONCOCTlW 

in c : cr> co to oj cr> co t>- co cm 
co t- -o << o o in c> cd i-i ^ 

0- t • CO << CO r-l rH CO CD O CO 

i\i H lO N 115 H CD O rH rH 



if; co << o 

-. M c- co m 
cd m co r-i 



cd co o t- a> co oj c» o — 

th it' 1 to r-i r- 1 co a> in m in o , 

ci' m l-- co lo f>- o m o tv 

rl CD tl t- ffl >J H O N O 

CM rH CO rH CO rH W N H 



o 


O 


to 


1 3 


c. 


C 1 






H 


H 


CO 





PL, 


i 




P 


co 




12 


I 3 




O 


or 


CO 


H 


rH 


■* 


e 







intDcorowNC-cftffiOH 

men OOOOrHrH^COlO 

ifiO)'.«Not-OfflOoia) 

0-COCOCOrHCOrHCOOCTilO 



CDCOCDCOCOCOOCOrH'H^H 

oituHincomrtwotOri 
toriiDinsaoOfflHOH 



O CO 


in 


C7> 


CM ^ 


CO 


a> 


CO CO 


c- 


cc 


» 






o 


oo 


rH 


5J 


rH 





'.« OOIN 
CM CO CO CM 
0"i << CO OJ ] 



APPENDIX VI 

RECEIPTS OF PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS 

FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1931, 1936 AND 1941 - 1947 

ESTIMATED FOR 1948 



PARK DEPARTMENT 























Probable 


Estimated 


Item 




1930-31 


1935-36 


1940-41 


1941-42 


1942-43 


1943-44 


1944-45 


1945-46 


1943-47 


1947-48 


Co it Tower 






$ 11,650 


$ 8,055 


$ 9,947 


$ 12,696 


$ 17,555 


$ 21,649 


$ 28,855 


$ 28,000 


$ 26,000 


Yacht Harbor -Mooriifeea 


$ IF. Gi7 


15,701 


17,043 


18,110 


18,188 


18,998 


18.956 


IS; 737 


22,000 


19,200 


Kezar Stadium & PaUon 


CO «^J( 


30,844 


25,646 


26,358 


58,616 


26,408 


35,736 


58,692 


120,000 


121,000 


Children's Quarteraaygrd 




5,690 


3,538 


7,556 


13,208 


17,310 


24,480 


24,000 


24,000 


Fleishhacker Playfil 


62,?,04 


42,502 


24,086 


23,794 


26,663 


31,902 


38,517 


53,039 


56,000 


56,000 


Fleishhacker Bath He 


24,003 


7,988 


6,109 


4,593 


5,098 


8,702 


14,789 


11,921 


14,000 


14,000 


Tennis 


100 


17,420 


11,066 


1,737 


1,030 


1,017 


1,098 


1,588 


1,500 


1,400 


Golf 


130,972 


96,926 


108,849 


114,258 


99,856 


113,819 


130,552 


168,982 


190,000 


193,000 


Refectories & Concaons 


176,822 


136,064 


180,893 


209,401 


232,101 


287,049 


322,057 


396,673 


442,000 


453,000 


Rents 


2,285 


2,225 


7,111 


5,464 


4,034 


9,980 


10,750 


10,139 


7,000 


10,000' 


Other 


737 


1,246 


792 


1,927 


2,114 


5,951 


6,605 


13,422 


14,400 


14,000 


Totals 


$439,257 


$362,566 


$395,241 


$419,127 


$447,952 


$534,589 


$618,019 


$786,528 


$918,900 


$931,600 


RECREATION DEPARTME 






















Item 






















Camp Mather 


50,4flfe 


41,135 


52,504 


46,552 


45,924 


40,820 


51,726 


68,645 


65,000 


87,200 


Swimming Fac il it ie s 


1,004 


1,354 


658 


2,234 


1,430 


648 


540 


578 


600 


750 


Rents 






13,161 


13,719 


15,369 


18,765 


21,930 


17,634 


17,800 


15,778 


Other 


2,213 
% 33,682 


1,036 
% 43,525 


805 
$ 67,128 


755 
§ 63,260 


1,222 
$ 63,945 


1,399 
61,632 


1,238 


1,159 
87,856 


1,200 
84,600 


1,250 


Totals 




75,434 


0104,978 


Grand Total 






















Parks & Recreation 




$472,939 


^406,091 


0462,369 


|482,387 


0511,897 


0596,221 


0693,453 


0074,384 


§1,003,500 


01,036,578 



APPENDIX VII 
MUNICIPALITIES HAVING CONSOLIDATED FARK AND RECREATION SERVICES 



State 


City 


Population 


ALABAMA 


Birmingham 


267,583 




Jacksonville 


2,995 


ARIZONA 


Mesa 


7,224 




Phoenix 


65,414 


CALIFORNIA 


Berkeley 


85,547 




Burbank 


54,337 




Glendale 


82,583 




Hermosa Beach 


7,197 




Los Angeles City 1,504*277 




L. A. County 


2,785,643 




National City 


10,344 




San Bruno 


6,519 




San Diego 


203,341 




San Hateo 


19,403 




South Gate 


26,945 




Visalia 


8,904 


CONNECTICUT 


Middletown 


26,495 




Torrington 


26,988 


FLORIDA 


Fort Lauderdale 


17,996 


GEORGIA 


Fulton County 


392,886 


INDIANA 


Fort Tayne 


118,410 




Shelbyville 


10,791 


KENTUCKY 


Louisville 


319,077 


LOUISIANA 


Shreveport 


98,167 


MAINE 


Snnford 


14,886 




South Portland 


15,781 


MARYLAND 


Baltimore 


859,100 


MASSACHUSETTS 


Gardner 


20,206 




Holyoke 


53,750 




Worcester 


193,694 




West Springfield 


17,135 



Department 

Park and Recreation Board 
Park and Recreation Board 

Park and Playgrounds Board 

Dept of ^arks & Public Recroation 

Dept of Parks & Playgrounds 
Park and Recreation Department 
Parks and Recreation Commission 
Parks ond Recreation Board 
Recr; p.+ Lon and Park Department 
Department of Parks & Recreation 
Park and Recreation Department 
Park and Recreation Commission 
Department of Recreation & Parks 
Fark and Recreation Department 
Park and Recreation Commission 
Park and Playground Department 

Department Parks and Playgrounds 
Park and Recreation Department 

Parks and Recreation Department 

County Parks & Recreation Dept. 

Parks and Recreation Department 
Park and Recreation Department 

Dept Parks and Public Recreation 

Dept Parks and Recreation 

Parks and Playground Commission 
Recreation and Parks Department 

Consolidation approved Nov 1946 

Park and Playground Department 
Parks and Recreation Commission 
Parks and Recreation Commission 
Park and Playground Commission 



-153- 



APPENDIX VII (Cont'd) 



MICHIGAN 


Detroit 


1,623,452 




Escnnaba 


14,830 




Flint 


151,543 




Lansing 


78,753 




Midland 


10,329 




Wayne 


4,223 


MINNESOTA 


Springfield 


2,361 


MISSISSIPPI 


Jackson 


62,107 


MISSOURI 


St. Louis 


816,048 


NEK HAMPSHIRE 


Berlin 


19,084 




Manchester 


77,685 




Nashua 


52,927 


NE17 JERSEY 


Manville 


6,065 




Somerville 


8,720 




Union 


24,730 


NEW YORK 


Dobbs Ferry- 


5,883 




Oneida 


10,291 




Schenectady- 


87, 549 


NORTH CAROLINA 


Charlotte 


100,899 




High Point 


39,495 




Monroe 


6,475 




Raleigh 


46,897 




Shelby 


14,037 




Wilson 


19,234 


OHIO 


Bucyrus 


9,727 




Hamilton 


50,592 




Steubenville 


37,651 




Youiagstovm 


167,720 


OREGON 


Portland 


305,394 


PENNSYLVANIA 


Altoona 


80,214 




Blairsville 


5,002 




Chamber sburg 


14,852 




Delaware County 


310,756 




Kcnnett Square 


3,375 



Department Porks and Recreation 
Department of Parks & Recreation 
Park and Recreation Board 
Park and Recreation Department 
Deportment of Parks & Recreation 
Department of Parks & Recreation 

Recreation and Park Department 

Park and Recreation Department 

Division Parks and Recreation 
Public Welfare Department 
Parks and Playgrounds Board 
Parks and Playgrounds Department 
Park-Recreation Commission 

Parks and Playgrounds Committee 
Park and Playground Commission 
Department of Parks & Playgrounds 

Park and Recreation Commission 
Park and Playground Commission 
Department of Parks and Recreation 

Park and Recreation Commission 
Department of Parks & Recreation 
Park and Recreation Commission 
Parks and Recreation Department 
Parks and Playground Commission 
Park and Recreation Department 

Recreation and Parks Board 
Department of Parks & Recreation 
Department of Parks & Recreation 
Park and Recreation Commission 

Bureau of Parks & Public Recreation, 

in Department of Finance 

Park and Recreation Commission 
Parks and Playgrounds Department 
Parks & Playgrounds Commission, 
Borough Council 

County Park and Recreation Board 
Park and Recreation Board 
Nether Providence Twp 4,700 Par": •. i Recreation Board 



South Grecnsburg 2,616 Publ 



ark & Playground Assn 



-154- 



APPENDIX VII (Cont'd) 



SOUTH CAROLINA 


Charleston 


71,275 




Columbia 


62,396 


TENNESSEE 


Johnson City 


25,332 




Knoacville 


111,580 


TEXAS 


Beamont 


59,061 




El Paso 


96,810 




Galveston 


60,862 




Houston 


384,514 




Temple 


15,344 




Tyler 


28,279 


VIRGINIA 


Radford 


6,990 




Roanoke 


69,287 


WASHINGTON 


Bremerton 


15,134 


WISCONSIN 


New London 


4,825 



Board of Parks and Playgrounds 
Park, Playground & Recreation Dcpt 

Park and Recreation Board 
Recreation and Park Department 

City Parks & Recreation Department 
Board of Parks and Recreation 
Recreation and Park Department 
Parks and Recreation Department 
Park and Recreation Department 
Parks and Recreation Department 

Fubl Re ere at, Parks & Playgrd Comm 
Bur. Parks & Recr. Dept Publ ^orks 

Recreation and Park Department 

Parks and Recreation Board 



Source: 1942 and 1944 Yearbooks of the National Recreation Association, 
supplemented by information secured from available charters and 
annual reports, as well as information received directly from 
cities where recent consolidations have been effected. 



-155- 



APPENDIX VIII 
DEPARTMENTS ADMINISTERING RECREATION 



A. Cities with 1940 Populations of 1,000,000 and More 



Name of City 

New York City, N Y 
Chicago, 111 



Philadelphia, Pa 
Detroit, Mich 
Los Angeles, Cal 



Population Title of Department 

7,454,995 Division of Park Department 
3,396,808 Bureau of Parks, Recreation & Aviation in 
City Department of Public Works; County 
Park system also has a recreation division 
1,931,334 Bureau of Recreation in Y elf are Department 
1,623,452 Department of Parks and Recreation 
1,504,277 Consolication approved April 1, 1947 



B« Cities with 1940 Populations of 500,000 to 1,000,000 



Baltimore, Md 859,100 

Boston, Mass 770,816 

Buffalo, N Y 5713,901 

Cleveland, Ohio 873,336 

Milwaukee, Wis 587,472 

Pittsburgh, Pa 671,659 

St. Louis, Mo 815,048 

San Francisco, Cal 634,536 

Washington, D C 663,091 



Consolidation approved November 1946 
Division of Park Department 
Division of Park Department 
Division of Recreation in Department 
of Parks and Public Properties 
Department of Education 
Parks and Recreation both bureaus in 
Department of Public Works 
Division of Parks and Recreation in 
Department of Public Welfare 
Separate Recreation Department 
Separate Recreation Department 



C. Cities with 1940 Population of 250,000 to 500,000 



Atlanta, Ga 302,288 

Birmingham, Ala 267,583 

Cincinnati, Ohio 455,610 

Columbus, Ohio 306,087 

Dallas, Tex 294,734 

Denver, Colo 322,412 
Joint program with schools 



Houston, Tex 
Indianapolis, Ind 
Jersey City, N J 
Kansas City, Mo 

Louisville, Ky 
Memphis, Tcnn 
Minneapolis, Minn 



384,514 
386,972 
301,173 
399,178 

319,077 

292,492 
492,370 



Division of Parks and Cemetery Department 
Park and Recreation Commission 
Separate Public Recreation Commission 
Separate Department of Public Recreation 
Division of Park Board 

City Parks and Playgrounds a division 
of Park Department under Manager of 
Improvements and Parks (Charter) 
Parks and Recreation Department 
Recreation Division, Park 3oard 
Department of Recreation 
Transferred in 1944 from Welfare to 
Department of Blvds., Parks and Streets 
Department of Parks and Recreation 
Recreation Department, Park Commission 
Board of Park Commissioners, Recreation Div 



-156- 



APPENDIX VIII (Cont'd) 



Name of Cit y 

New Orleans, La 
Newark, N J 

Oakland, Cal 

Portland, Ore 

Providence, R I 
Rochester, N Y 
St. Paul, Minn 



San Antonio, Tex 
Seattle, Wash 
Toledo, Ohio 



Population Title of De p artment 

494,537 Playground Community Service Commission 
429,760 Recreation Department, Board of Education 
302,163 Board of Flayground Directors coordinated 

with similar board in schools 
305,394 Bureau of Parks and Public Recreation 

in Finance Department 
253,504 Recreation Bureau, Park Department 
324,975 Park Bureau, Department of Public Safety 
287,736 Bureau of Playgrounds, Department of 

Parks and Public Buildings 
253,854 Recreation Department 
368,302 Park Department 
282,349 Department Public Welfare 



D. Cities vrith 1940 Population of 100,000 to 250,00 



Akron, Ohio 244,791 

Albany, N Y 130,577 

Bridgeport, Conn 147,121 

Cambridge, Mass 110,879 

Camden, N J 117,536 

Canton, Ohio 108,401 

Charlotte, N C 100,899 

Chattanooga, Tenn 128,163 

Dayton, Ohio 210,718 

Des Moines, Iowa 159,819 

Duluth, Minn 101,065 

Elizabeth, N J 109,912 

Erie, Fenn 116,955 

Fall River, Mass 115,428 

Flint, Mich 151,543 

Fort "ayne, Ind 118,410 

Fort Worth, Tex 177,662 

Gary, Ind 111,719 

Grand Rapids, Mich 164,292 

Hartford, Conn 166,267 

Jacksonville, Fla 173,065 

Kansas City, Kan 121,458 

Enoxville, Tenn 111,580 

Long Beach, Cal 164,271 



City Recreation Department 

Department of Recreation, Board of Educ 

Board of Recreation 

Recreation Division, Park Department 

Department of Parks & Public Property 

Recreation Board, City School Department 

Park and Recreation Commission 

No information 

Bureau of Recreation and Park Division, 

Department of Public We If are 

Playground and Recreation Commission 

Recreation Department 

Board of Recreation Commissioners 

Department of Porks and Public Property 

Recreation Division, Park Department 

Park and Recreation Board 
Parks and Recreation Department 
Public Recreation Department 
No information 
Public Recreation Department 

Recreation Division, Park Department 
Playground and Recreation Board 
Recreation Division, Welfare Department 
Recreation and Park Department 
Recreation Commission 



-157- 



AFPENDIX VIII (Cont«d) 



Nome of City 

Lowell, Mass 
Miami, Fla 

Nashville, Term 
New Bedford, Mass 
Now Haven, Conn 



Population Titlo of Department 

101,389 Board of Park Commissioners 

172,172 Division of Recreation, Dept of Pub Wlfa 

167,402 Board of Park Commissioners 

110,341 No information 

160,605 Recreation Division, Park Commission 



Norfolk, Va 
Oklahoma City, 
Omaha, Neb 
Pater sen, N J 
Peoria, 111 



Okla 



144,352 
204,424 
223,844 
139,656 
101,087 



Recreation Bureau, Dept Public '."elfare 
Recreation Division, Park Department 
Department of Recreation 
Board of Recreation 
Recreation Commission 



Reading, Pa 110,568 

Richmond, Va 193,042 

Sacramento, Cal 105,958 

Salt Lake City, Utah 149,934 

San Diego, Cal 203,341 

Scranton, Fa 140,404 

Soraerville, Mass 102,177 

South Bend, Ind 101,268 

Spokane, Wash 122,401 

Springfield, Mass 149,554 

Syracuse, N Y 205,967 

Tacoma, V.'ash 109,408 

Tampa, Fla 108,391 

Trenton, N J 124,697 

Tulsa, Okla 142,157 

Utica, N Y 100,518 

Wichita, Kan 114,966 

Wilmington, Del 112,504 

Worcester, Mass 193,694 

Yonkers, N Y 142,598 

Youngstomi, Ohio 167,720 



Recreation Department 

Eurcau of Parks and Recreation, 

Department of Public Tiorks 

Recreation Department 

Department of Parks and Public Property 

Department of Recreation and Parks 

Bureau of Recreation, Department of 

Public Works 

Recreation Commission 

Recreation Dopnrtment 

Park Department 

Division of Recreation, Park Department 

Recreation Commission 

Recreation Commission 

Board of Public Recreation 

Department of Parks and Public Property 

Park Department 

Department of Recreation 

Board of Park Commissioners 
Board of Park Commissioners 
Parks and Recreation Commission 
Recreation Department 
Park and Recreation Commission 



-158- 



APPENDIX VIII (Cont'd) 



E. Cities with 1940 Population of 75,000 to 100,000 



Wane of City 

Allentown, Pa 
Altoona, Pa 
Austin, Tex 
nayonne, N J 
Berkeley, Cal 

Binghampton, N Y 
East St. Louis, 111 
El Paso, Tgx 
Evansville, Ind 
Glendale, Cal 

Harrisburg, Pa 
Huntington, 7i Va 
Lansing, Mich 
Lawrence, Mass 
Lincoln, Neb 

Little Rock, Ark 
Lynn, Mass 
Manchester, 11 H 
Montgomery, Ala 
Niagara Falls, N Y 

Pasadena, Cal 
Pawtucket, R I 
Quincy, Mass 
Rockford, 111 
Saginaw, Mich 

St. Joseph, Mo 
Savannah, Ga 
Schenectady, N Y 
Shreveport, La 
Sioux City, Iowa 

Springfield, 111 
Wat or bury, Conn 
Wilkes -Barre, Pa 
Winston-Salem, N C 



Population Title of Department 

96,904 Recreation Commission 

80,214 Park and Recreation Commission 

87,930 Recreation Department 

79,178 Dept of Parks and Public Property 

85,547 Recreation Department 

78.809 Municipal Recreation Commission 
75,609 Unknown 

96.810 Board of Parks and Recreation 
97,062 Department of Public Parks 
82,582 Parks and Recreation Commission 

83,893 Bureau of Parks and Public Property 

78,836 Lions Club 

78,753 Park and Recreation Department 

84,323 Department of Public Property and Parks 

81,984 Recreation Department 

88,039 Unknown 

98,125 Board of Park Commissioners 

77,635 Parks and Playground Department 

78,084 Park Department 

78,029 Park Commission 

81,864 Department of Recreation 

75,797 Unknown 

75,810 Park Department 

84,637 Park District 

82,794 Department of Education 

75,711 Board of Park Commissioners 

95,996 Recreation Commission 

87,549 Department of Park and Recreation 

98,167 Department of Parks and Recreation 

82,364 Recreation Department 

75,503 Playground and Recreation Commission 

99,314 Park Department 

86,236 Department of Parks and Public Property 

79,815 City Recreation Department 



-159- 



APPENDIX VIII (Cont'd) 



P. Cities with 1940 Population of 50,000 to 75,000 



Name of City 


Population 


Amorillo, Tex 


51,686 


Ashville, N C 


51,310 


Atlantic City, N J 


64,094 


August©., Ga 


65,919 


Beaumont, Tex 


59,061 


Bethlehem, Pa 


58,490 


Brockton, Mass 


62,343 


Cedar Rapids, Iowa 


62,120 


Charleston, S C 


72,275 


Charleston, W Va 


67,914 


Chester, Pa 


59,285 


Cicero, 111 


64,712 


Cleveland Heights, Ohic 


i 54,992 


Columbia, S C 


62,396 


Columbus, Ga 


53,280 


Corpus Christi, Tex 


57,301 


Covington, Ky 


62,018 


Davenport, Iowa 


66,039 


Dearborn, Mich 


63,584 


Decatur, 111 


59,305 


Durham, N C 


60,195 


East Chicago, Ind 


54,637 


East Orange, N J 


68,945 


Evanston, 111 


65,389 


Fresno, Cal 


60,685 


Galveston, Tex 


60,862 


Greensboro, N C 


59,319 


Hamilton, Ohio 


50,592 


Hammond, Ind 


70,184 


Highland Park, Mich 


50,810 


Hoboken, N J 


50,115 


Holyokc, Mass 


53,750 


Irvington, N J 


55,328 


Jackson, Miss 


62,107 


Johnstown, Pa 


66,668 



Title of Dep artment 

Park Department 

Public Works Department 

Department of Public Affairs 

City Recreation Commission 

City Parks and Recreation Department 

Department of Public Recreation 

Recreation Commission 

Playground and Recreation Commission 

Board of Parks and Playgrounds 

No information 

Recreation Board 

Park District 

Board of Educ, Div Public Relations 

Recreation Department 

Department of Recreation 

Recreation Department 
No information 
Park Board 

Recreation Department 
Playground and Recreation Board 

Dept Publ Playgrounds and Recroation 
No information 

Board of Recreation Commissioners 
Bureau of Recreation, City Council 
Recreation Department 

Recreation and Park Department 
Recreation Commission 
Department of Parks and Recreation 
Park Commission 
Recrea.tion Department 

Department of Parks & Public Property 
Park and Recreation Commission 
Department of Public Recreation 
Park Recreation Department 
Municipal Recreation Commission 



-160- 



APPENDIX VIII (Cont'd) 



Name of Ci ty 

Kalamazoo, Mich 
Lakcwood, Ohio 
Lancaster, Pa 
Macon, Ga 
Madison, Wis 

Maiden, Mass 
McKeesport, Pa 

Modford, Mass 
Mount Vernon, N Y 
Nov; Britain, Conn 

New Rochelle, N Y 
Newton, Mass 
Oak Park, 111 
Passaic, N J 
Phoenix, Ariz 

Pontiac, Mich 
Portland, Me 
Portsmouth, Va 
Pueblo, Colo 
Racine, Wis 

Roanoke, Va 
St. Petersburg, Fla 
San Jose, Cal 
Santa Monica, Cal 
Springfield, Mo 

Springfield, Ohio 
Stockton, Cal 
Terra Haute, Ind 
Topcka, Kan 
Troy, N Y 

Union City, N J 
Upper Darby, Pa 
Waco, Tex 
Waterloo, Iowa 
Wheeling, W Va 
York, Pa 



Popu lation 

54,097 
69,160 
61,345 
57,865 
67,447 

58,010 
55,355 
63,083 
67,362 
68,685 

58,408 
69,873 
66,015 
61,394 
65,414 

66,626 
73,643 
50,745 
52,162 
67,195 

69,287 
60,812 
68,457 
53,500 
61,238 

70,662 
54,714 
62,693 
67,833 

70,304 

56,173 
56,883 
55,982 
51,743 
61,099 
56,712 



Ti tle o f Depar tment 

Department of Recreation 
Recreation Dept, Board of Education 
Private Recreation Assn, municipal help 
Recreation Department 
Board of Education 

No information 

Department of Parks and Public Property 

Board of Park Commissioners 

Recreation Commission 

Municipal Recreation Commission 

Recreation Commission 

Recreation Department 

Playground Board 

Recreation Department 

Dept of Parks and Public Recreation 

Recreation Department 

Recreation Commission 

Recreation Bureau, Div of Public Welfare 

Recreation Commission, Inc 

Recreation Department 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

Recreation Department 

Recreation Division, Park Department 

Public Works Department 

Park Board 

Recreation Department 
City Recreation Department 
No information 
Park Department 
Recreation Department 

No information 
Township and School Board 
City Recreation Department 
Recreation Commission 
Recreation Department 
Recreation Commission 



Sources: 1942 and 1944 Yearbooks of the National Recreation Association, 
supplemented by information secured from available charters and 
annual reports, as well as information received directly from 
cities where recent consolidations have been effected. 



•161- 



?i/i